From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n09JfGpn017391 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:41:17 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:41:15 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump support for 64K page size Message-ID: <20090109194115.GA1855@infradead.org> References: <4964C5EF.3060308@sgi.com> <4965629C.2000703@sgi.com> <20090108222800.GG9448@disturbed> <4967A73E.9020907@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4967A73E.9020907@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Bill Kendall Cc: xfs-dev , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 01:36:30PM -0600, Bill Kendall wrote: > Once that is done, I suggest we put Dave's original patches in the > -dev trees. That way it'll have proper attribution as well as commit > messages with some detail. The commits were merged back to the -dev trees alredy, and at least for xfsprogs we already have a commit ontop. I'd say let's use how this was handled as a bad example and get over it. What we should do however is putting dump images of every page size we can hold of (4k/8k/16k/64k) and maybe both endianesses into the xfstests repository so we can exercise them as part of the normal QA procedure. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs