From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A17491A08DF for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 07:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736321187; cv=none; b=GV7xCWIRgibutboe0kBdrFHSk91tXDkmwrAHytI4Nv5U8uLJPGua/9QuRprCicYtTV+B5zu11+f7oGXUWCNx4J1y31KATwzBy/3p598yhTUOOU7LE8ybhln1NOeezQE7QmcvCuRO6YzrNlR9Q/iTkZvpPkSd7CrmocGCjMVtbXQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736321187; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/fPq4nMc86GWyggwGP/+5zuYpLJPgO17izkY0xdCkGk=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VbsoKPg9mFSJ5GHTcKJAcQOOdaJfbz/8S+tHx++2EvbijgMBCnhnBbj+np9Us2LApZk/nJIRo/XBnzRBDg2AB//LVRy1hpxVEAkwflYqxoM/Us6I40/Mwoq8uMdppruSiwQ8sDSl3zE5QJJQYH6jYRq+Lt68KdqDXqz4HQYmT3s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YSfWg70QHz1W3k4; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:22:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.126]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 941E61400DC; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:26:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.175.112.188) by dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:26:21 +0800 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:22:00 +0800 From: Long Li To: Christoph Hellwig CC: "Darrick J. Wong" , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: correct the sb_rgcount when the disk not support rt volume Message-ID: References: <20241231023423.656128-1-leo.lilong@huawei.com> <20241231023423.656128-2-leo.lilong@huawei.com> <20250106195220.GK6174@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 10:58:02PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > sb_rgcount for file system without a RT subvolume and without the > metadir/rtgroup feature should be 1. That is because we have an implicit > default rtgroup that points to the global bitmap and summary inodes, > which exist even with zero rtblocks. Now for a kernel without > CONFIG_XFS_RT that probably does not matter, but I'd prefer to keep the > value consistent for CONFIG_XFS_RT vs !CONFIG_XFS_RT. > > Your explanation seems reasonable to me, thanks for your replay. Long Li