[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs
From: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:47:06 +1100
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, nscott@xxxxxxxxxx, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <47C89303.7070902@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: SGI Engineering
References: <op.t67mtawg3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1204166101.13569.102.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47C87775.2010007@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47C89137.3070805@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47C89303.7070902@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: markgw@xxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071210)

Russell Cattelan wrote:
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

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.

how about /proc/fs/xfs/features
.. any format suggestions?

But, the kernel you mkfs under isn't necessarily the one you're going to
need to fall back to tomorrow, though...

nor the one you just installed but haven't rebooted into yet

True but at least it could make a bit of a intelligent decision.
and maybe a warning for a while about potentially incompatible flags.

yes agree



 Mark Goodwin                                  markgw@xxxxxxx
 Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP    Phone: +61-3-99631937
 SGI Australian Software Group           Cell: +61-4-18969583

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