From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:31:41 -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 m230VIjx030322 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:31:20 -0800 Message-ID: <47CB4696.1030304@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:30:14 +1100 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com 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> <47CB434B.4040005@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <47CB434B.4040005@sgi.com> 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: Timothy Shimmin Cc: nscott@aconex.com, Russell Cattelan , Eric Sandeen , Barry Naujok , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Timothy Shimmin wrote: > 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? It was worse than that - IIRC, he wanted to know what features are supported by the XFS kernel module he just installed (this was part of an Appman upgrade scenario). I thought we rejected that bug ? > > I don't think Dave (dgc) and others were not so keen on it IIRC. anyone recall the reasons? Maybe I'm missing something, but if we export all the feature bits, both new and old, then (a) an old mkfs will continue to ignore them, and (b) future versions of mkfs will have all the information needed, but will need t be smart about how that information is used. Cheers -- Mark Goodwin markgw@sgi.com Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP Phone: +61-3-99631937 SGI Australian Software Group Cell: +61-4-18969583 -------------------------------------------------------------