From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41C47F59 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:35:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C848F8066 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id pZDsLE5esDIZy9I4 for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:35:47 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] xfs: increase inode cluster size for v5 filesystems Message-ID: <20130909153546.GT12779@dastard> References: <1378715664-19969-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130909133254.GA14778@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130909133254.GA14778@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I can't see anything v5 format specific here, as 512 byte inodes can be > created with v4 filesystems as well. It's an RFC, and so i've just done the minimum I need to do to verify it is working corectly. Indeed, I'm not sure it is all there yet, as I haven't tested increased inode alignments on older kernels. So I'm not sure whether it will need a feature bit or not yet. The test matrix of having to test everything on v4 and v5 is just nasty, especially if we are talking about prototyping code. I'd much prefer to bring things to v5 filesytsems where we have much lower exposure and risk of corruption problems, and then when we know it's solid because of the QA we've done on it, then we can expose the majority of the XFS userbase to it by bringing it back to v4 filesystems. As i've said before - if someone wants to bring new features to v4 filesystems sooner than I do, then they need to step up and do the work themselves, because I don't have the time and resources to fully verify new features on v4 filesystem formats... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs