|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>|
|References:||<op.t67mtawg3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1204166101.13569.102.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47C87775.2010007@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47C89137.3070805@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (X11/20071227)|
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Russell Cattelan wrote:I don't suppose there is an easy way to query xfs and find out if it can supportHmm, 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.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.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Date:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Mark Goodwin|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Mark Goodwin|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|