From: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
To: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: inode64 superblock flag is still worth
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:37:07 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130222173707.GA15663@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130222161713.GV22182@sgi.com>
Right, I'll take a look on how to implement it,
thanks Ben
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:17:13AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote
> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:27:21AM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > I was looking the "Ideas for XFS" wiki page, and noticed a topic about the
> > implementation of a flag in superblock to identify the filesystem is using
> > 64-bit inodes. Once we use it by default now, is this idea still worth? I can
> > work on it, but I don't think this is still worth to be implemented.
> > If still looks worth, I'd suggest a flag set when 32-bit inodes only is used not
> > 64, but I really dunno how this might be useful for kernel. From a user
> > perspective, it might help, but `mount` command or mtab already shows inode32
> > option when it's used.
>
> So the inode32 allocation policy becomes persistent and no longer need to be
> set at mount time. This is definately worth working on, IMO.
>
> Setting a bit in the superblock would work fine for inode32. We should think
> about something more general before making on-disk changes for this. For
> example, Rich recently posted the agskip data allocation policy which (like
> inode32) was implemented as a mount option. If agskip=5 were to be made
> persistent we'd need space in the superblock to keep track of the 5.
>
> I think an xattr on the root inode could be a good solution as long as it is
> invisible to the user. The interface for changing alloc policies should
> probably be in xfs_io or xfs_mkfs.
>
> -Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
--
Carlos
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-22 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-22 13:27 inode64 superblock flag is still worth Carlos Maiolino
2013-02-22 16:17 ` Ben Myers
2013-02-22 17:37 ` Carlos Maiolino [this message]
2013-02-23 0:55 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130222173707.GA15663@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com \
--to=cmaiolino@redhat.com \
--cc=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox