[PATCH 51/50] xfs: add xfs sb v4 support for dirent filetype field

[Michael L. Semon]

On 8/25/2013 1:18 AM, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 02:19 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>> Gents,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Geoffrey Wehrman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:02:26PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> | I'm very, very, very unhappy about how this situation is unfolding.
>>>
>>> As am I.
>>
>> Mark provided some mkfs code to test the v4 feature bit with, and it
>> worked fine for me.
>>
>> Given that we are protected by a feature bit, I feel that pulling in the
>> v4 feature is considerably less risky than what we did in 3.10, with
>> Dave still cleaning up his mess in -rc6, so go ahead and call me
>> reckless:  I've pulled in both v4 and v5 versions of this code.
>>
>> Mark, please post your mkfs code ASAP, even though Dave hasn't reposted
>> his userspace series yet.
>>
>> Everybody gets his code in and nobody is happy.
>>
>> -Ben
>
> Mark's v4 dirent patches seem to work on 32-bit x86.  I happen to agree
> 100% with Dave on this issue.  However, lacking a dirent test and
> xfs_db skills, I threw everything else and the kitchen sink at
> v4-dirent XFS and did not find any evidence to back up Dave's argument.
> So I'll tip my cap to Mark for his insight on the matter, hoping that
> his testing skills are fine as always.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael
>

BTW, are there any xfstests results times for dirent vs. non-dirent 
code?  For whatever reason, generic/068 is posting noticeably worse 
numbers for v4-dirent XFS than for both v4 XFS and v5-dirent CRC XFS.

I'm running the tests myself as well, but it will take a while to run 
them for v4 XFS, v4-dirent XFS, v4-dirent-512b-inode XFS, and 
v5-dirent-CRC XFS...which kinda speaks to Dave's point about supporting 
a matrix of filesystems, but I wasn't meaning it that way...

Thanks again!

Michael