[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 8/9] xfs: add fsgeom flag for v5 superblock support.

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] xfs: add fsgeom flag for v5 superblock support.
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:11:42 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51A61A55.1000306@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1369636707-15150-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1369636707-15150-9-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51A61A55.1000306@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:10:13AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/27/13 1:38 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Currently userspace has no way of determining that a filesystem is
> > CRC enabled. Add a flag to the XFS_IOC_FSGEOMETRY ioctl output to
> > indicate that the filesystem has v5 superblock support enabled.
> > This will allow xfs_info to correctly report the state of the
> > filesystem.
> Looks fine,
> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Ben, having this in place for for the next point release will let
> userspace work & testing proceed w/o the need for a patched
> kernel... if you could consider pulling it in that'd be great.
> Dave, just out of curiosity, most other features sort of match between
> the "_has_*" and the flag names, is there a reason for the
> crc <-> sbv5 difference?  Just semantics, but just curious.
> (i.e. xfs_sb_version_hasprojid32bit checks XFS_SB_VERSION2_PROJID32BIT,
> but xfs_sb_version_hascrc checks XFS_SB_VERSION_5)
> Answering my own question maybe, I guess SB_VERSION_5 was conceived
> with crc already in place, so there's no need for a feature flag on
> top of the sb version, right...?

Exactly. New features that require feature flags will end up
following the flag/function name convention, but it's not necessary
in this case because V5 sb = CRCs enabled.


Dave Chinner

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