|To:||Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs|
|From:||Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:11 +1100|
|Cc:||nscott@xxxxxxxxxx, Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|References:||<firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <47C87775.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47C89137.email@example.com> <47C89303.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Macintosh/20071031)|
Nathan Scott wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 17:19 -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote:I thought about that; xfs *could* stick someting in /proc/fs/xfswithgoing tosupported features or somesuch.
974981: mkfs.xfs should warn if it is about to create a fs that cannot be mounted
Ivan was wanting this in December last year. Remember, Mark? He wanted to know what XFS features the running kernel supported?
I don't think Dave (dgc) and others were not so keen on it IIRC.
(Seems fine to me:)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Barry Naujok|
|Next by Date:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Donald Douwsma|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Nathan Scott|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Mark Goodwin|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|