From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q9IG41D9199671 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:04:01 -0500 Message-ID: <508028CC.5080800@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:05:32 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Update mount options documentation References: <1350574138-30305-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <5080253A.9060906@sgi.com> <5080279C.8030702@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <5080279C.8030702@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Howorth Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 10/18/12 11:00, Dave Howorth wrote: > Mark Tinguely wrote: >> Would "Indicates that XFS is allowed to create inodes at locations up to >> 32 bits of significance .." > > I prefer the original wording. Your suggestion says something about what > XFS can do, but nothing about what it is not allowed to do, which is > rather more important. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs I see your point. Sounds good to me. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs