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 3C2C37FD5 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 03:16:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE158F8033 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 01:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Yah8TAgcdQBUmi5P (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 06 May 2014 01:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 01:16:52 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: don't need dirv2 checks anymore Message-ID: <20140506081652.GC24143@infradead.org> References: <1399348559-19889-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1399348559-19889-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1399348559-19889-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > - ASSERT(xfs_sb_version_hasdirv2(&mp->m_sb)); > + ASSERT(mp->m_sb.sb_versionnum & XFS_SB_VERSION_DIRV2BIT); How is this going to work for v5 filesystems? Probably better to just kill the assert.. Otherwise looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs