From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:18:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.sgi.com (netops-testserver-3.corp.sgi.com [192.26.57.72]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m230Iglo024341 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:18:43 -0800 Message-ID: <47CB43EE.3060405@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:18:54 +1100 From: Donald Douwsma 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: nscott@aconex.com Cc: 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. Could work but I dont like the idea of using -f for anything but mkfsing an existing filesystem. If that becomes habit for people it could lead to disasters. Don