xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfsdump support for 64K page size

To: Bill Kendall <wkendall@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump support for 64K page size
From: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:19:08 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4964C5EF.3060308@xxxxxxx>
Organization: SGI Engineering
References: <4964C5EF.3060308@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: markgw@xxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)


Bill Kendall wrote:
Various fixes to allow xfsdump/xfsrestore to work with 64K
page size. This is essentially Chinner's patch from a while
back.

Signed-off-by: Bill Kendall <wkendall@xxxxxxx>

Lachlan reviewed and ack'd this on an internal list and I've committed
it (on Bill's behalf) as follows :

git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsdump.git
        commit 9502587dbbfdd465958889a568dc2842f10b1ff9
        Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
        Date:   Thu Jan 8 12:37:53 2009 +1100

            Various fixes to allow xfsdump/xfsrestore to work with 64K
            page size. This is essentially Chinner's patch from a while
            back.
        
            Signed-off-by: Bill Kendall <wkendall@xxxxxxx>
            Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
            Signed-off-by: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>

and for the libhandle changes :

git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git
        commit aa23a327ad7bb659f94c492119c928038d13b069
        Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
        Date:   Thu Jan 8 12:37:11 2009 +1100

            Various fixes to allow xfsdump/xfsrestore to work with 64K
            page size. This is essentially Chinner's patch from a while
            back.
        
            Signed-off-by: Bill Kendall <wkendall@xxxxxxx>
            Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
            Signed-off-by: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>

This introduces a dependency between xfsdump and libhandle (in xfsprogs),
which may or may not be an issue now that the cmds are in split trees.
I guess maybe xfsdump/restore should rightfully be part of xfsprogs?

In any case, Christoph, please pull these commits into your kernel.org -dev trees.

Thanks
-- Mark

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