From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp09.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.142]:47445 "EHLO e23smtp09.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbbJOH5a (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:57:30 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp09.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:57:27 +1000 Received: from d23relay06.au.ibm.com (d23relay06.au.ibm.com [9.185.63.219]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C2A2CE8052 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:57:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by d23relay06.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t9F7vCvM22741042 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:57:20 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t9F7uquB027527 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:56:52 +1100 From: Chandan Rajendra To: Qu Wenruo Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, dsterba@suse.com, chandan@mykolab.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Btrfs-progs: Do not force mixed block group creation unless '-M' option is specified Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:26:33 +0530 Message-ID: <5143356.m2iRuWGxTk@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <561F05F1.4030409@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1444844377-19776-1-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <561F05F1.4030409@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 15 Oct 2015 09:48:33 Qu Wenruo wrote: > The mount failure also remind me about btrfs minimal size check. > > Mkfs has its device check against nodesize by btrfs_min_dev_size() function. > So this also means currect btrfs_min_dev_size() check is not good enough. > > > Current code uses a quite simple one, > 2 *(MKFS_SYSTEM_BLOCK_GROUP_SIZE + leaf_size << 10). > But it still fails to be mounted. > > Although not related to your patch, do you have any good calculation on > the minimum device size? > Qu, Thanks for pointing this out. I missed out on this one. Currently I have not got any numbers on arriving at a minimum device size. Will work on that and post the results. -- chandan