From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, dsterba@suse.cz, clm@fb.com,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, wqu@suse.de
Subject: Re: Are the btrfs mount options inconsistent?
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:43:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <341.1534859015@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b5b0a92-8a51-e516-b14a-74557b002d71@gmx.com>
Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> But to be more clear, NOSSD shouldn't be a special case.
> In fact currently NOSSD only affects whether we will output the message
> "enabling ssd optimization", no real effect if I didn't miss anything.
That's not quite true. In:
if (!btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, NOSSD) &&
!fs_info->fs_devices->rotating) {
btrfs_set_and_info(fs_info, SSD, "enabling ssd optimizations");
}
the call to btrfs_set_and_info() will turn on SSD.
What this seems to me is that, normally, SSD will be turned on automatically
unless at least one of the devices is a rotating medium - but this appears to
be explicitly suppressed by the NOSSD option.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-21 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-16 11:01 Are the btrfs mount options inconsistent? David Howells
2018-08-16 13:05 ` David Sterba
2018-08-20 12:24 ` David Howells
2018-08-20 12:39 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-08-21 13:43 ` David Howells [this message]
2018-08-21 14:13 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2018-08-21 14:24 ` David Sterba
2018-08-21 14:26 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-08-21 14:35 ` David Howells
2018-08-21 14:40 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-08-20 12:35 ` David Howells
2018-08-21 13:46 ` Do btrfs compression option changes need to be atomic? David Howells
2018-08-21 14:02 ` Chris Mason
2018-08-21 14:20 ` David Sterba
2018-08-21 14:34 ` David Howells
2018-08-21 15:11 ` David Sterba
2018-08-21 16:13 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=341.1534859015@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=wqu@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).