From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m230Ftk2023782 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:15:59 -0800 Message-ID: <47CB434B.4040005@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:11 +1100 From: Timothy Shimmin 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> <47C89137.3070805@sandeen.net> <47C89303.7070902@thebarn.com> <1204500895.10190.3.camel@edge.scott.net.au> In-Reply-To: <1204500895.10190.3.camel@edge.scott.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Mark Goodwin Cc: nscott@aconex.com, Russell Cattelan , Eric Sandeen , Barry Naujok , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Nathan Scott wrote: > On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 17:19 -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote: >>> 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... >>> >>> >> True but at least it could make a bit of a intelligent decision. >> and maybe a warning for a while about potentially incompatible flags. > > Might also be a good idea to require -f to force a mkfs of a filesystem > which the kernel doesn't support. > 974981: mkfs.xfs should warn if it is about to create a fs that cannot be mounted Ivan was wanting this in December last year. Remember, Mark? He wanted to know what XFS features the running kernel supported? I don't think Dave (dgc) and others were not so keen on it IIRC. (Seems fine to me:) --Tim