From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227B57F37 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 16:47:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:47:01 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] xfs: add fsgeom flag for v5 superblock support. Message-ID: <20130529214701.GC20028@sgi.com> References: <1369636707-15150-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1369636707-15150-9-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <51A61A55.1000306@sandeen.net> <20130529214301.GB20028@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130529214301.GB20028@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:43:01PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:10:13AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 5/27/13 1:38 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > > > Currently userspace has no way of determining that a filesystem is > > > CRC enabled. Add a flag to the XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY ioctl output to > > > indicate that the filesystem has v5 superblock support enabled. > > > This will allow xfs_info to correctly report the state of the > > > filesystem. > > > > > > Looks fine, > > > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen > > > > Ben, having this in place for for the next point release will let > > userspace work & testing proceed w/o the need for a patched > > kernel... if you could consider pulling it in that'd be great. > > Sounds reasonable. I'll check it out. > > > Dave, just out of curiosity, most other features sort of match between > > the "_has_*" and the flag names, is there a reason for the > > crc <-> sbv5 difference? Just semantics, but just curious. > > > > (i.e. xfs_sb_version_hasprojid32bit checks XFS_SB_VERSION2_PROJID32BIT, > > but xfs_sb_version_hascrc checks XFS_SB_VERSION_5) > > > > Answering my own question maybe, I guess SB_VERSION_5 was conceived > > with crc already in place, so there's no need for a feature flag on > > top of the sb version, right...? > > Seems like we're also out of space in xfs_fsop_geom.flags. > There may even be > people who prefer to use v5 super blocks without crcs turned on, so maybe > conflating the two ideas here is undesireable. Nevermind. That was silly. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs