xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:39:45 -0600
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1163977907.4695.157.camel@edge>
References: <455CB54F.8080901@xxxxxxxxxxx> <BB70F203E29C2D37A2F727C8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061117023946.GN11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CEB981736A0E8C7DF9ABD7C8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061117055521.GS11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52841.10.0.0.2.1163745285.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1163746343.4695.152.camel@edge> <48064.10.0.0.2.1163776850.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1163977907.4695.157.camel@edge>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313)
Nathan Scott wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 09:20 -0600, sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 00:34 -0600, sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
and really, now that this is out in the wild, maybe sb_features3
instead of padding is appropriate, and check both for the attr2
bit...? :(
Thats not going to work, theres three or four other feature2 bits
preceding attr2 as well.

The "take a 32 bit systems fs to a 64 bit system" is relatively
uncommon, so I suppose its just something we live with (as we did
with the log recovery issues in that situation for several years).
So you think this should not be fixed, then?  Because if it -is- fixed

I didn't say that.  It should be fixed.  Noone will notice though,
as its not actually biting anyone... (the attr2 problem will not
be related to this, its gonna be something else).

but it can't just be properly padded in the kernel and leave it at that, can it? If so won't attr2 filesystems on x86_64 suddenly start appearing to be attr2?

-Eric


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