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 23EF27F50 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:16:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151328F8065 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id QGJIxWgBYZTM4JjY (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:16:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:16:37 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] xfs: make superblock version checks reflect reality Message-ID: <20140307101637.GD32333@infradead.org> References: <1394088890-10713-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140306180534.GA305@infradead.org> <20140306225541.GL6851@dastard> <20140307083430.GQ6851@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140307083430.GQ6851@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 07:34:30PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Ok, we don't reject filesystems that don't have the NLINK bit set. > Older filesystems that have only v1 inodes won't have that bit > set, and we didn't set NLINK by default in mkfs until late 2007. > Hence we need to keep some form of NLINK support around. > > The alternative is to simply set the bit in the superblock if it is > not set, and then just assume everywhere that it is set and we are > using v2 inodes. That will get rid of the hasnlink/addnlink code > needed to modify the superblock when the link count goes above > MAX_NLINK_1, and will result in filesystems always converting v1 > inodes to v2 inodes on writeback of dirty inodes. I don't see a > problem with taking this approach, bt maybe I'm missing something? I'd love to get rid of v1 support sprinkled all over. Obviously this should be a separate patch, but making both the code and the in-use filesystems less diverse is a good idea. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs