On 10/8/14 8:39 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 08.10.2014 14:50, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Josh Boyer wrote on 07.10.2014 21:15: >>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> [...] >>> 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 >> [...] >> I'm not thrilled with adding that patch to Fedora at all. > > Fully agreed. > >> […] They get away with this in SLE12 because it's roughly the first time >> btrfs is available in a supported fashion. […] > > Well, it's supported since SLE11SP2 already, which is more than two > years old, but the point in the end is the same, yes. But FWIW, it seems > that simply how they work afaics, as they do something similar to ext4, too: > > http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel-source/tree/patches.suse/ext4-unsupported-features.patch?h=SLE12 > > CU > knurd > Interesting, bigalloc and checksums - yeah, I probably would have chosen those, too, for now. I think there's a little difference, though, in that bigalloc in particular, and checksums to some degree, are really kind of niche / corner case features of ext4. (Who here even knew ext4 had a "bigalloc" feature, raise your hand!) The list of unsupported btrfs features seems like a lot of core advertised functionality - no compression, no raid5, no device replace, no btrfs receive... -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
