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 :
> 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
> 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