xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump support for 64K page size
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:37:08 -0500
Cc: Bill Kendall <wkendall@xxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4965629C.2000703@xxxxxxx>
References: <4964C5EF.3060308@xxxxxxx> <4965629C.2000703@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 01:19:08PM +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 :

If you commit something on someone else's behalf please use the --author
argument to git-commit so that it shows up as coming from that author
in the git version history.  Or just use git-am on the patch mail which
will sort out all this by itself.

> 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.

It's not a new depdency.  xfsdump depended on libhandle for a long time
(and before it did depend on dmapi IIRC).  Just to actually get dump
properly working with 64k pages you need the most uptodate version
of both packages.

> I guess maybe xfsdump/restore should rightfully be part of xfsprogs?

I think having them split makes a lot of sense as many people don't
need dump.  What we should eventually do is to move xfs_fsr over to
xfsprogs.

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