xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Rambling noise #2: Learning to use the v8 pquota/uquota patchset

To: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Rambling noise #2: Learning to use the v8 pquota/uquota patchset
From: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:16:20 +0800
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51933585.80400@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <5191FB46.2080300@xxxxxxxxx> <519241A1.9050704@xxxxxxxxxx> <51933585.80400@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
On 05/15/2013 03:13 PM, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 09:52 AM, Jeff Liu wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Have you tried this patch set with the v2 user space changes?
>>
>> Looks this is the latest update from Chandra that I can searched from
>> the mailing list:
>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-07/msg00293.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Jeff
> 
> It looks like it's not patching very well in light of Dave's CRC 
> userspace changes, and I botched the mkfs part of the merge.
Yes, that is based on the older version of xfsprogs with out CRC changes
applied.

So we have to wait until an updated version is delivered. :)

Thanks,
-Jeff
> 
> For xfsprogs include/xfs_sb.h, Patch #1 has this:
> 
> +#define XFS_SB_VERSION2_NO_OQUOTA      0x00000100      /* sep prj quota 
> inode */
> 
> However, in the current xfsprogs include/xfs_sb.h, there is this line:
> 
> #define XFS_SB_VERSION2_CRCBIT                0x00000100      /* metadata 
> CRCs */
> 
> This overloaded meaning of 0x00000100 did not seem right, so after my 
> failure with the finished mkfs.xfs, it was time to go back to the 
> current git xfsprogs.  I'm sure that the userspace will be reworked 
> before the kernel code is final.  I'll show some patience, and Dave's 
> upcoming CRC code activation will probably force me to back Chandra's 
> patchset out anyway.
> 
> Despite my bumbling through it all, the kernel gquota/pquota patchset 
> shows promise.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Michael
> 
> P.S. - I applied your xfs_growfs_data_private patch, and all seems well 
> so far.  In particular, there was no change in the test results from 
> `./check -xfs -g growfs`.
> 

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