From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arne Jansen Subject: Re: [patch] Move nodesize/leafsize/sectorsize to fs_info Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:54:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA87372.5050006@gmx.net> References: <20111026133409.GA5914@twin.jikos.cz> <4EA81D73.8090005@gmx.net> <20111026162338.GD5914@twin.jikos.cz> <20111026162719.GC5177@shiny.Mikenopa.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: Chris Mason , Peeters Simon , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111026162719.GC5177@shiny.Mikenopa.local> List-ID: On 10/26/2011 06:27 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 06:23:38PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote: >>> The sizes get initialized to 4096, but after the super block is read, >>> these are replaced by those from the SB. >> >> [reads sources again] right, and the initial values are not used up to >> that point, so 4096 could be any number. >> >>> It was indeed meant to get rid of the possibility to have different >>> sizes for different trees, as it just adds complexity. Chris mentioned >>> once that he does not intend to allow different sizes between trees, >>> thus the idea for this cleanup. >> >> Ok then. I'll gather it to cleanup patch queue. > > Thanks, I actually don't intend to allow different leaf and node sizes > anymore either, but we might as well keep both numbers. So that would be another good cleanup, as it is not always easy to tell if a block is a node or a leaf. It would actually simplify things. -Arne > > -chris >