xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:19:31 -0600
Cc: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <47C89137.3070805@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <op.t67mtawg3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1204166101.13569.102.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47C87775.2010007@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47C89137.3070805@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071227)
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Russell Cattelan wrote:


Hmm, that still seems pretty soon to me.  I'd have thought you'd at
least want to wait until most of the distributions (esp. SUSE for you
guys) have released versions that have kernels sufficiently recent
that the default mkfs will work.  Otherwise this will be a recurring
problem.
I don't suppose there is an easy way to query xfs and find out if it can support
the lazy SB option?

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.

-Eric


Attachment: cattelan.vcf
Description: Vcard

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>