| To: | Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:11:51 -0600 |
| Cc: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <47C87775.2010007@thebarn.com> |
| References: | <op.t67mtawg3jf8g2@pc-bnaujok.melbourne.sgi.com> <1204166101.13569.102.camel@edge.scott.net.au> <47C87775.2010007@thebarn.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) |
Russell Cattelan wrote: >> Hmm, that still seems pretty soon to me. I'd have thought you'd at >> least want to wait until most of the distributions (esp. SUSE for you >> guys) have released versions that have kernels sufficiently recent >> that the default mkfs will work. Otherwise this will be a recurring >> problem. >> > I don't suppose there is an easy way to query xfs and find out if it can > support > the lazy SB option? I thought about that; xfs *could* stick someting in /proc/fs/xfs with supported features or somesuch. But, the kernel you mkfs under isn't necessarily the one you're going to need to fall back to tomorrow, though... -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Russell Cattelan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Russell Cattelan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Russell Cattelan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs, Russell Cattelan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |