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 (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25267F55 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:54:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808D88F804B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 06:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GuJxtnZWrQ4DjfcY for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 06:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <522DD321.1010201@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:54:41 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] xfs: increase inode cluster size for v5 filesystems References: <1378715664-19969-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130909133254.GA14778@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20130909133254.GA14778@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 9/9/13 8:32 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I can't see anything v5 format specific here, as 512 byte inodes can be > created with v4 filesystems as well. Good point - why is this uniquely needed for V5 filesystems? If it wasn't a problem w/ larger inodes before, why is it now? This makes the dreaded test matrix go a bit more wonky... -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs