Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[REVIEW\]\s+Don\'t\s+make\s+lazy\s+counters\s+default\s+for\s+mkfs\s*$/: 66 ]

Total 66 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 02 Mar 2008 11:26:07 +0100
CI is what? -Andi
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00004.html (8,806 bytes)

2. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:41:53 -0500
Case-insensitivity aka. case-folding. Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. -- Bad pun of the week: The formula 1 control computer suffered from a race condition
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00005.html (9,440 bytes)

3. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:34:55 +1100
Might also be a good idea to require -f to force a mkfs of a filesystem which the kernel doesn't support. Would be good to get blocksize > pagesize into this scheme too btw, and unfortunately that on
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00008.html (10,537 bytes)

4. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:59:43 +1100
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:11:03 +1100, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> 0xffffffff 0x00000001 hm, but of course mkfs should never be checking for anything in the first features slot; yesterday's kerne
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00009.html (11,010 bytes)

5. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:11 +1100
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/xfs with supported features or somesuch. But, the kernel yo
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00010.html (11,442 bytes)

6. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Donald Douwsma <donaldd@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:18:54 +1100
Could work but I dont like the idea of using -f for anything but mkfsing an existing filesystem. If that becomes habit for people it could lead to disasters. Don
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00011.html (10,615 bytes)

7. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:24:09 +1100
Its already used for more than just overwriting existing filesystems. :) And it is already habit for some people. Which leads to disasters, yes. Its not a perfect system, but there's only so much you
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00012.html (10,489 bytes)

8. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:30:14 +1100
Timothy Shimmin wrote: 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/xfs with supported features or somes
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00013.html (12,941 bytes)

9. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 20:15:59 -0500
IMHO: 1) mkfs should make a filesystem, the defaults should be conservative (say using features that have been around >1 year) 2) xfs should export supported features to userspace 3) if you want to m
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00019.html (11,436 bytes)

10. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:56:50 -0600
I suppose I have to agree, unfortunately that means most competetive benchmarks will be using sub-optimal mkfs's, but... Ya know, good point. We already have "running kernel compatibility checks" bui
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00021.html (12,284 bytes)

11. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:19:16 -0600
most benchmarks I see tune the heck out of "the home team" and leave the rest ;) eh, nobody reads that stuff :) -Eric
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00025.html (11,929 bytes)

12. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 23:14:09 -0500
Benchmarks that use default mkfs options on xfs, but non-default on other fs? If you want, have a simple printf in mkfs that tells the user that he's not using the latest and greatest features (e.g.
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00026.html (11,941 bytes)

13. Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:47:39 +1100
Yes, we got to the consensus that having mkfs check for kernel stuff is plain wrong, and there are a load of reasons to that, the most convincing is that you can have no XFS support in the kernel at
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00027.html (12,262 bytes)

14. rnel oops / XFS filesystem corruption (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 02 Mar 2008 11:26:07 +0100
id you also happen to save the xfs_repair output? No, but I made a complete copy of the file system before repairing it, so I can easily recreate it... :) Thomas Phase 1 - find a
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00393.html (8,806 bytes)

15. t make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:41:53 -0500
to save the xfs_repair output? No, but I made a complete copy of the file system before repairing it, so I can easily recreate it... :) Thomas Phase 1 - find a
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00394.html (9,440 bytes)

16. rnel oops / XFS filesystem corruption (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:34:55 +1100
n
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00397.html (10,537 bytes)

17. t make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:59:43 +1100
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00398.html (11,010 bytes)

18. t make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: k@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:11 +1100
filesystem which the kernel doesn't support. Would be good to get blocksize > pagesize into this scheme too btw, and unfortunately that on
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00399.html (11,442 bytes)

19. t make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: s@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:18:54 +1100
xxxxxxxx> 0xffffffff 0x00000001 hm, but of course mkfs should never be checking for anything in the first features slot; yesterday's kerne
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00400.html (10,615 bytes)

20. t make lazy counters default for mkfs (score: 1)
Author: d@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:24:09 +1100
Fri, 2008-02-29 at 17:19 -0600, Russell Cattelan wrote: I thought about that; xfs *could* stick someting in /proc/fs/xfs with supported features or somesuch. But, the kernel yo
/archives/xfs/2008-03/msg00401.html (10,489 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu