From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0059EC433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A8761420 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230390AbhDUF4R (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:56:17 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:53000 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230343AbhDUF4R (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:56:17 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 6C83468C4E; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:55:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:55:41 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo A . R . Silva" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: clean up the EFI and EFD log format handling Message-ID: <20210421055541.GA28961@lst.de> References: <20210419082804.2076124-1-hch@lst.de> <20210419082804.2076124-3-hch@lst.de> <20210420170529.GH3122264@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210420170529.GH3122264@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:05:29AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hmm... so the behavior change here is that 32-bit kernels will start > logging 16-byte xfs_extent structures (like 64-bit kernels)? Yes. > I see that > xfs_extent_32 was added for 2.6.18; won't this break recovery on > everything from before that? Where everything is a 32-bit kernel that doesn't align properly, yes. > Granted, 2.6.17 came out 15 years ago and the last 2.6.16 LTS kernel was > released in 2008 so maybe we don't care, but this would seem to be a > breaking change, right? This seems like a reasonable change for all V5 > filesystems (since that format emerged well after 2.6.18), but not so > good for V4. Err, why?