From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490317F50 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:40:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <521B7700.2090803@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:40:48 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely 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 To: "Michael L. Semon" Cc: Ben Myers , Eric Sandeen , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 08/25/13 00:18, 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 > Thanks for your thoughts on the subject and tests. In the end, we all want XFS to continue to succeed. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs