small problem w/ new xfs defaults patch

small problem w/ new xfs defaults patch

[Eric Sandeen]

Index: xfsprogs-2.9.4/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
===================================================================
--- xfsprogs-2.9.4.orig/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
+++ xfsprogs-2.9.4/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
@@ -58,7 +58,6 @@ report_info(
        int             isint,
        char            *logname,
        char            *rtname,
-       int             unwritten,
        int             lazycount,
        int             dirversion,
        int             logversion,
@@ -68,7 +67,7 @@ report_info(
            "meta-data=%-22s isize=%-6u agcount=%u, agsize=%u blks\n"
            "         =%-22s sectsz=%-5u attr=%u\n"
            "data     =%-22s bsize=%-6u blocks=%llu, imaxpct=%u\n"
-           "         =%-22s sunit=%-6u swidth=%u blks, unwritten=%u\n"
+           "         =%-22s sunit=%-6u swidth=%u blks"
            "naming   =version %-14u bsize=%-6u\n"
            "log      =%-22s bsize=%-6u blocks=%u, version=%u\n"
            "         =%-22s sectsz=%-5u sunit=%u blks, lazy-count=%u\n"


couple things... you lost a "\n" off the end of the data section there...

Also, do you really want to drop reporting of unwritten extents?  Even
if you're disallowing the selection on new mkfs's there may still be
different flavors of filesystems in existence, should it still be reported?

-Eric

Re: small problem w/ new xfs defaults patch

[Niv Sardi]

* Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> [2008-01-20 21:46:39 -0600]:

> Index: xfsprogs-2.9.4/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
> ===================================================================
[...]
> couple things... you lost a "\n" off the end of the data section there...

That has been fixed, I guess it needs to be sent to oss  (barry?)

> Also, do you really want to drop reporting of unwritten extents?  Even
> if you're disallowing the selection on new mkfs's there may still be
> different flavors of filesystems in existence, should it still be reported?

I don't really care, whatever the oss/xfs-master people like best.

Cheers
-- 
Niv

Re: small problem w/ new xfs defaults patch

[Eric Sandeen]

Niv Sardi wrote:
> * Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> [2008-01-20 21:46:39 -0600]:
> 
>> Index: xfsprogs-2.9.4/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
>> ===================================================================
> [...]
>> couple things... you lost a "\n" off the end of the data section there...
> 
> That has been fixed, I guess it needs to be sent to oss  (barry?)

Ok, see that.  Sorry... grabbed the original patch and didn't check cvs
for updates.

Thanks,
-Eric

>> Also, do you really want to drop reporting of unwritten extents?  Even
>> if you're disallowing the selection on new mkfs's there may still be
>> different flavors of filesystems in existence, should it still be reported?
> 
> I don't really care, whatever the oss/xfs-master people like best.
> 
> Cheers

Re: small problem w/ new xfs defaults patch

[Timothy Shimmin]

Niv Sardi wrote:
> * Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> [2008-01-20 21:46:39 -0600]:
> 
>> Index: xfsprogs-2.9.4/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
>> ===================================================================
> [...]
>> couple things... you lost a "\n" off the end of the data section there...
> 
> That has been fixed, I guess it needs to be sent to oss  (barry?)
> 
>> Also, do you really want to drop reporting of unwritten extents?  Even
>> if you're disallowing the selection on new mkfs's there may still be
>> different flavors of filesystems in existence, should it still be reported?
> 
> I don't really care, whatever the oss/xfs-master people like best.
> 
> Cheers

My preference would be to report the unwritten extent flag as Eric suggested.

--Tim