From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [34/37] Large blocksize support in ramfs Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:50:02 -0600 Message-ID: <20070620205002.GH5181@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <20070620182907.506775016@sgi.com> <20070620183013.967063205@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Mel Gorman , William Lee Irwin III , David Chinner , Jens Axboe , Badari Pulavarty , Maxim Levitsky To: clameter@sgi.com Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:36350 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750869AbXFTUuH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:50:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070620183013.967063205@sgi.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Jun 20, 2007 11:29 -0700, clameter@sgi.com wrote: > If you apply this patch and then you can f.e. try this: > > mount -tramfs -o10 none /media > @@ -164,10 +165,15 @@ static int ramfs_fill_super(struct super > + if (options && *options) > + order = simple_strtoul(options, NULL, 10); This is probably a bad name for a mount option. What about "order=10"? Otherwise you prevent any other option from being used in the future. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.