From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93607F4E for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:21:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2356304043 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f176.google.com (mail-gh0-f176.google.com [209.85.160.176]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lfanNjL7rbfUcDqJ (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-gh0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z17so680600ghb.7 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <521A9173.5070502@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:21:23 -0400 From: "Michael L. Semon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 51/50] xfs: add xfs sb v4 support for dirent filetype field References: <1376304611-22994-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130819201940.516942026@sgi.com> <5212AA1D.3000809@sandeen.net> <52137D3D.8060205@sgi.com> <20130821000624.GO6023@dastard> <20130821170336.GJ5262@sgi.com> <20130822020226.GR6023@dastard> <20130822161456.GB23510@sgi.com> <20130822181910.GP5262@sgi.com> <521993AA.7010301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <521993AA.7010301@gmail.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs