From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380F67F37 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 20:11:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245B1304039 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GQOtfRDaqL6WNw4B for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:11:42 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] xfs: add fsgeom flag for v5 superblock support. Message-ID: <20130530011142.GH29466@dastard> References: <1369636707-15150-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1369636707-15150-9-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <51A61A55.1000306@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51A61A55.1000306@sandeen.net> 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 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. > > 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...? Exactly. New features that require feature flags will end up following the flag/function name convention, but it's not necessary in this case because V5 sb = CRCs enabled. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs