From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l5T7YrtL018262 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:34:54 -0700 Subject: Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <4684B1CC.60004@corky.net> References: <4683ADEB.3010106@corky.net> <46841C60.5030207@sandeen.net> <4684A506.4030705@corky.net> <4684A98B.1030000@corky.net> <20070629070814.GR31489@sgi.com> <4684B1CC.60004@corky.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:33:55 +1000 Message-Id: <1183102435.15488.170.camel@edge.yarra.acx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Just Marc Cc: David Chinner , Barry Naujok , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 08:16 +0100, Just Marc wrote: > > > In my first post I already said something like that can be done but > it's > just an ugly hack. Don't you think it would best be handled cleanly > and correctly by fsr itself? > As I said earlier, fsr already issues the ioctl you're concerned about using - I'm not sure what the issue is there - if you need to do a setxattr, Just Do It. cheers. -- Nathan