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 n0EN7Rmv008165 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:07:27 -0600 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 701A517FDE65 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:07:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DBsWZHtYcn0Wa3Y1 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:07:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:48:57 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump support for 64K page size Message-ID: <20090114224857.GA8071@disturbed> 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: > Dave Chinner wrote: > > BTW, these changes are the *exact* patches I sent back in March. > > I note that the change logs from those patches have been dropped > > on the floor. i.e.: > > Right, only difference is that I removed the asserts rather than > just having them commented out. In my determination the asserts > are totally bogus -- there isn't a dependency on the system's > page size in the inomap code. ..... > The inomap code uses xfsdump's PGSZ variable, which is fixed at 4K. > There's no dependency here on the system's actual page size. I was > able to dump and then restore on a system with a different page size. Ok, that looks fine. however, there is a dependency that HNKSZ >= PGSZ, right? And that is currently hardwired to (4 * PGSZ)? And given that the intent of the PGSZ was to be made variable at some point, isn't this really trying to ensure that HNKSZ is always greater than the PGSZ the program was built with? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs