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 39D877F3F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:47:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1D0AC005 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:47:05 -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 NRF1aHZLF1ZecFDR for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:46:58 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: V5 format and man mkfs.xfs Message-ID: <20140617224658.GJ9508@dastard> References: <20140617082651.GA27971@citd.de> <20140617123738.GH9508@dastard> <20140617152917.GA17378@citd.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140617152917.GA17378@citd.de> 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: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:29:17PM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On 17.06.2014 22:37, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:26:51AM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > How seriously meant is "V5 isn't experimental anymore"? > > > > "Fully supported" isn't a clear enough statement? > > I guess that was a "selective memory"-bug on my side. > > > > I ask because the man-page only mentions the syntax to enable it by > > > accident. A.k.a. the backport of ftype to V4. > > > (man-page of xfsprogs 3.2.0 in Debian-SID) > > > > That's intentional. V5 superblocks are an implementation detail that > > most users don't even need to know about. They care about the name > > of the features they are enabling at mkfs time, not the details of > > the on-disk implementation of those features. > > The question still stands. > > The crc-option is only mentioned "by accident". > Without the ftype backport there would be no mention of the "feature > crc". Ok, so you're not reporting that we don't mention V5 filesystems as "V5" filesystems. You're reporting that the "-m crc" option is not documented. That's an oversight, and needs to be fixed. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs