On 10/19/22 07:19, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 10/19/22 1:16 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >> On 10/18/22 22:12, Yi Zhang wrote: >>> The new minimum size for the xfs log is 64MB which introudced from >>> xfsprogs v5.19.0, let's ignore it, or nvme/013 will be failed at: >>> >> >> instead of removing it set to 64MB ? > > What is the advantage of hard-coding any log size? By doing so you are > overriding mkfs's own best-practice heuristics, and you might run into > other failures in the future. > > Is there a reason to not just use the defaults? > I think the point here to use the minimal XFS setup. Does default size is minimal ? or at least we should document what the size it is. -ck
