From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: Please reserve INCOMPAT flags Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:55:56 +0530 Message-ID: <20091205042556.GA7426@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090906092546.GU4197@webber.adilger.int> <853282DF-4A37-4677-9E4C-F7C26A00C890@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , ext4 development To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.143]:47574 "EHLO e23smtp01.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757669AbZLEE0B (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:26:01 -0500 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.245]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nB54OQJo011035 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:24:26 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nB54Q6cc1237176 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:26:06 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nB54Q5aH001269 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:26:06 +1100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <853282DF-4A37-4677-9E4C-F7C26A00C890@sun.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:15:11PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2009-09-06, at 03:25, Andreas Dilger wrote: > >in addition to the data-in-dirent INCOMPAT flag Rahul sent the patches > >for last week, I would like to ensure that we also have the INCOMPAT > >flag for large EA-in-inode flag reserved. This patch is going into > >testing at one of our large customers, and I want to make sure that > >we don't accidentally get a conflicting INCOMPAT flag assignment. > > > >#define EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EA_INODE 0x0400 > >#define EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_DIRDATA 0x1000 > > > >#define EXT4_EA_INODE_FL 0x00200000 /* Inode uses large EA */ > > > Hi Ted, > I noticed Aneesh proposing to use the 0x0400 INCOMPAT flag for the > NFSv4 ACL support, but this conflicts with the large EA feature we > had previously discussed. We now have a couple of customers using > the large EA feature at this point, and I wouldn't want to break > their filesystem as a result of an avoidable conflict. > > I'll attach patches for this, which will hopefully make it easier, > and the patch tracking tool will keep this visible. > > Aneesh, maybe you can use 0x0800 for the INCOMPAT_RICHACL? > > I have updated richacl patches to use 0x0800. -aneesh