[f2fs-dev] 答复: 答复: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: add no compress extensions support

[<changfengnan@vivo.com>]

It seems that we don't need to support * for non-compress.

For now, if one file match comp_extention, the dir flag not work, but we can still use comp_file_flag and no_comp_file_flag. So the priority is:
dir_flag < comp_extention <  comp_file_flag, no_comp_file_flag.

after add no_comp_extention flag, the priority should be:
dir_flag < comp_extention < no_comp_extention <  comp_file_flag, no_comp_file_flag.


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
发送时间: 2021年4月20日 0:23
收件人: Fengnan Chang <fengnanchang@gmail.com>
抄送: yuchao0@huawei.com; changfengnan@vivo.com; 
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
主题: Re: [f2fs-dev] 答复: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: add no compress extensions 
support

On 04/17, Fengnan Chang wrote:
> In this patch, we cannot handle files without extensions. At the moment 
> there is just a rough idea，test a portion of the data to decide whether 
> to compress it before performing a full compression. It may need more 
> test.  Any other suggestions?
>
> In my consider, the non-compress  flag has a higher priority than the 
> compressed flag.
> 1. the same extension name cannot not appear in both compress and 
> non-compress extension at the same time， check this in mount process.
> 2. If the compress extension specifies all files, the types specified by 
> the non-compress extension will be treated as special cases and will not 
> be compressed.
> 3. If the non-compress extension specifies all files, should not specifies 
> any compress extension, check in mount process too.

Do we need to support * for non-compress?

>
> Any other suggestions?

So, what could the priority for all the below combinations?

E.g., comp_extention, no_comp_extention, dir_flag, comp_file_flag, 
no_comp_file_flag.

Thanks,






_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel