From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:13:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m0L5DT3G014757 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:13:34 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:13:41 +1100 From: Niv Sardi Subject: Re: small problem w/ new xfs defaults patch Message-ID: <20080121051341.GA31708862@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <4794159F.9070505@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4794159F.9070505@sandeen.net> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss * Eric Sandeen [2008-01-20 21:46:39 -0600]: > Index: xfsprogs-2.9.4/growfs/xfs_growfs.c > =================================================================== [...] > couple things... you lost a "\n" off the end of the data section there... That has been fixed, I guess it needs to be sent to oss (barry?) > Also, do you really want to drop reporting of unwritten extents? Even > if you're disallowing the selection on new mkfs's there may still be > different flavors of filesystems in existence, should it still be reported? I don't really care, whatever the oss/xfs-master people like best. Cheers -- Niv