On 9/16/20 10:22 AM, Benjamin Block wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: ... >> Sub-page block support in filesystems is not a wild, esoteric, unexpected >> feature. >> > > These kinds of problems are not really that rare across different > Filesystems. > > Try creating a XFS fs on a system with 64k PAGE_SIZE and a blocksize of > 64k, then try mounting that fs on a x86_64 machine. It won't work: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.8/source/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c#L165 > And IIRC xfs is the default for RHEL, no? It is. mkfs.xfs defaults to 4k blocks, so XFS filesystem are, by default, compatible across all supported architectures. RHEL would not choose a default fs with this sort of incompatibility across arches. Block > page size is a different problem vs what is described in this thread. If you /manually/ create a large block size fs, overriding the defaults, then yes you will have a compatibility problem on smaller page systems. That's not the same as "you cannot create any btrfs filesystem that is usable on both 4k and 64k page systems" -Eric _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
