From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:49532 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754433Ab2LRXTe (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:19:34 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:19:33 -0700 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F7C1FF0050 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:19:17 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qBINJJXH280672 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:19:22 -0700 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qBINJIkl008087 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:19:19 -0700 Message-ID: <50D0F9F1.6070209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:19:13 -0800 From: Wade Cline MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Samuel CC: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, bo.li.liu@oracle.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, cmm@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] Btrfs: Subpagesize blocksize (WIP). References: <1355814805-13935-1-git-send-email-clinew@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121218073050.GA19332@liubo.cn.oracle.com> <50D02E0A.8080505@cn.fujitsu.com> <50D0EDAA.3090202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50D0F5E0.2010701@csamuel.org> In-Reply-To: <50D0F5E0.2010701@csamuel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/18/2012 03:01 PM, Chris Samuel wrote: > On 19/12/12 09:26, Wade Cline wrote: > >> Yeah. Basically, if we create a btrfs filesystem with a 4k blocksize >> then that filesystem is incompatible with architectures such as PowerPC >> and MIPS which have a page size larger than 4k. > What happens currently? Does the btrfs code detect the mismatch and > refuse to mount, or does it all go horribly wrong? > > cheers, > Chris I recall hacking the mkfs.btrfs tool, testing it, and finding that the filesystem wouldn't mount. I haven't created a non-hacked filesystem on x86 and ported it to PPC verbatim yet, but the same should happen there; it shouldn't crash the kernel. -Wade