From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:12:15 -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 m1TNBnAC032101 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:11:51 -0800 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0B2B6E4B9E2 for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ezWFey9lY0MUq7fk for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:12:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C89137.3070805@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:11:51 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs References: <1204166101.13569.102.camel@edge.scott.net.au> <47C87775.2010007@thebarn.com> In-Reply-To: <47C87775.2010007@thebarn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Russell Cattelan Cc: nscott@aconex.com, Barry Naujok , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Russell Cattelan wrote: >> Hmm, that still seems pretty soon to me. I'd have thought you'd at >> least want to wait until most of the distributions (esp. SUSE for you >> guys) have released versions that have kernels sufficiently recent >> that the default mkfs will work. Otherwise this will be a recurring >> problem. >> > I don't suppose there is an easy way to query xfs and find out if it can > support > the lazy SB option? I thought about that; xfs *could* stick someting in /proc/fs/xfs with supported features or somesuch. But, the kernel you mkfs under isn't necessarily the one you're going to need to fall back to tomorrow, though... -Eric