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 BCBCA7F37 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:28:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59640AC002 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id H85QMYC5NVBsGRvo for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:27:56 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Proposal/RFC: new metadata-specific UUID for V5 supers Message-ID: <20150429212756.GW15810@dastard> References: <553EB3D1.10602@sandeen.net> <20150427233754.GT21261@dastard> <553ED9D8.4050106@sandeen.net> <20150428012003.GS15810@dastard> <553EEB36.4080200@sandeen.net> <5541253D.4090701@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5541253D.4090701@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 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 01:38:53PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 4/27/15 9:06 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 4/27/15 8:20 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > >> I think that labels are a far better way of dealing with this > >> problem. Get rid of the UUID mount checking (and hence the nouuid > >> mount option), and tell people to use by-label instead of by-uuid to > >> identify their filesystems when doing clones and snapshots. Labels > >> make it much easier for humans to identify the filesystem than > >> UUIDs... > > > > I suppose so. Withdrawn. ;) > > One more thought. ;) > > It'd be quite possible to keep defaults compatible with old kernels, > and only set the new feature if/when a user requests a UUID change. > > If UUID changes are rare, it'll rarely matter; if they are required, > it'll be possible. I might send a patch just to make the discussion > a bit more concrete. Yes, we have precedence for doing things like that - v2 inodes, attr2, etc. See what you come up with ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs