From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m1T5hvnh001338 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:43:58 -0800 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id F131BEEE504 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JkS1oCt3ZI2dBIDU for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:44:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C79BB8.4010005@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:44:24 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [REVIEW #3] bad_features2 support in user-space References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Barry Naujok Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Barry Naujok wrote: > Ok, xfs_repair will leave bad_features2 in place just in case it is > being run with an older kernel that expects features2 in the bad > location. But, it will make sure the correct and bad features2 are > consistent if bad_features2 in non-zero. > > If bad_features2 is zero, it is left alone (eg. new mkfs or new > kernel with fixes it during mount time). > > This seems to be the best solution to the problem. Will look at details later, but I agree w/ the general direction... I think maybe the kernel should go this way too? (i.e. kernel maybe shouldn't be zeroing features2 either... but this is probably more important for userspace than kernelspace; how often do you revert to an older kernel...) -Eric