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

[Ben Myers]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:43:01PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> 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 at redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > 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 at redhat.com>
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.  I'll check it out.
> 
> > 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...?
> 
> Seems like we're also out of space in xfs_fsop_geom.flags.


> There may even be
> people who prefer to use v5 super blocks without crcs turned on, so maybe
> conflating the two ideas here is undesireable.

Nevermind.  That was silly.