Josh Boyer wrote on 07.10.2014 21:15: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > […] >>> I think the point is somewhat valid though. To just keep repeating the >>> mantra 'its not ready' is not going to make it any more ready. If suse >>> can identify a stable subset of btrfs features and use it as their >>> default file system with those restrictions, why can't we do the same ? >>> The approach makes sense to me, at least... >> Because they still have the support staff for when users don't listen, >> Fedora doesn't. > As an aside, I looked at their 3.16.2-1.1.gdcee397 kernel-source SRPM. > I can't find any patches that limit btrfs usage. I could totally be > wrong, but if someone knows of a patch that limits the features please > point me to it. Due to a coincidence I yesterday took a quick look myself and didn't spot anything. But in case you haven't looked further: I found one in the SLE-Kernels: http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel-source/tree/patches.suse/btrfs-8888-add-allow_unsupported-module-parameter.patch?h=SLE11-SP3 http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel-source/tree/patches.suse/btrfs-8888-add-allow_unsupported-module-parameter.patch?h=SLE12 HTH CU knurd P.S.: BTW, Jeff Mahoney a year ago posted a small table what btrfs features they considered supported and unsupported: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.suse.opensuse.devel/52669/ Is anyone aware of a more current table like that? Or Josef, do the Btrfs developers maintain one somewhere? I'd welcome one. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
