From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:35905 "EHLO mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751741AbcEYBF0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2016 21:05:26 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c189so12316036pfb.3 for ; Tue, 24 May 2016 18:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1464138323.2680.27.camel@slavad-ubuntu-14.04> Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: introduce on-disk layout version checking functionality From: Viacheslav Dubeyko To: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Vyacheslav.Dubeyko@hgst.com, Cyril.Guyot@hgst.com, Adam.Manzanares@hgst.com, Damien.LeMoal@hgst.com Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:05:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160523211357.GA17297@jaegeuk.gateway> References: <1463679966.3573.4.camel@slavad-ubuntu-14.04> <20160523211357.GA17297@jaegeuk.gateway> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Jaegeuk, On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:13 -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Slava, > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:46:06AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > ... > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT > > +#define F2FS_MAX_SUPP_MAJOR_VERSION (2) > > +#define F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT_VERSION (2) > > +#else > > +#define F2FS_MAX_SUPP_MAJOR_VERSION (1) > > +#endif > > + > ... > > > > +static int f2fs_check_version_and_features(struct super_block *sb, > > + struct f2fs_super_block *raw_super) > > +{ > > + u16 major_ver = le16_to_cpu(raw_super->major_ver); > > + u32 feature = le32_to_cpu(raw_super->feature); > > + > > + if (major_ver > F2FS_MAX_SUPP_MAJOR_VERSION) { > > This means, for example, f2fs driver in v4.8 will deny to mount a partition > formatted by mkfs.f2fs v3.x, which doesn't make sense, IIUC. > I didn't catch the point. Maybe, I've missed something but, as far as I can judge, f2fs driver v.4.8 will mount as old version of on-disk layout as the new one. But right now it doesn't make sense to discuss this topic because we haven't consent about ideology of this patch. > As Christoph mentioned, how about checking the feature only like this? > > 1. if the feature is ON, > - go 64 bits , when compiled w/ F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT > - fail to mount, when compiled w/o F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT > > 2. if the feature is OFF, > - fail to mount, when compiled w/ F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT > - go 32 bits , when compiled w/o F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT > > Thoughts? > So, my logic is simple. We are trying to modify the on-disk layout. As a result, we need to check the on-disk layout version, from my viewpoint. And this modification is not "feature" itself but simple bug fix. And I believe that "major_ver", "minor_ver" in F2FS superblock is the on-disk layout version. What do you think? Do you still believe that it should be a feature flag? Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko.