Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs

[Richard Weinberger]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:21 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> It might make life easier for other kernel developers if "features"
> was named "compat_features" and "requirements" were named
> "incompat_features", just because of the long-standing use of that in
> ext2, ext3, ext4, ocfs2, etc.  But that naming scheme really is a
> legacy of ext2 and its descendents, and there's no real reason why it
> has to be that way on other file systems.

Yes, the naming confused me a little. :-)

-- 
Thanks,
//richard