From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m22NYT6j020544 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:34:32 -0800 Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2E63F63E3AA for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (prod.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ZYz48CG7zGnCKmqG for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:34:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <47C89303.7070902@thebarn.com> References: <1204166101.13569.102.camel@edge.scott.net.au> <47C87775.2010007@thebarn.com> <47C89137.3070805@sandeen.net> <47C89303.7070902@thebarn.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:34:55 +1100 Message-Id: <1204500895.10190.3.camel@edge.scott.net.au> 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: Russell Cattelan Cc: Eric Sandeen , Barry Naujok , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 17:19 -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote: > > > I thought about that; xfs *could* stick someting in /proc/fs/xfs > with > > supported features or somesuch. > > > > But, the kernel you mkfs under isn't necessarily the one you're > going to > > need to fall back to tomorrow, though... > > > > > True but at least it could make a bit of a intelligent decision. > and maybe a warning for a while about potentially incompatible flags. Might also be a good idea to require -f to force a mkfs of a filesystem which the kernel doesn't support. Would be good to get blocksize > pagesize into this scheme too btw, and unfortunately that one isn't a superblock flag) - so this scheme might need to go beyond those flags, if anyone decides to implement it. cheers. -- Nathan