From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [195.159.176.226] ([195.159.176.226]:39081 "EHLO blaine.gmane.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753606AbdAKT0i (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:26:38 -0500 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cROXJ-00056S-FN for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:26:17 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: mkfs.btrfs/balance small-btrfs chunk size RFC Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:57:52 -0500 as excerpted: > I can't personally comment on the code itself right now (I've actually > never looked at the mkfs code, or any of the stuff that deals with the > System chunk), but I can make a few general comments on this: > 1. This behavior is still the case as of a Git build from yesterday (I > just verified this myself with the locally built copy of btrfs-progs on > my laptop). Thanks. After posting and seeing Qu W's response I was thinking I needed to test current behavior, and you just saved me the trouble (tho I do need to freshen my backup /boot one of these days, likely testing mkfs.btrfs on this in the process, but that can wait until 4.10). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman