On 30/08/2023 04:28, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
On 03/08/2023 12:43, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
[...]
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 19 +++++++-
fs/btrfs/fs.h | 3 +-
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 18 +++++++
fs/btrfs/super.c | 8 ++--
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 3 +-
include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h | 7 +++
7 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
Hi folks, while working the xfstests for this case, I've noticed the
single-dev feature is not exposed in sysfs! Should we make it available
there?
> A quick change here made me see it there, but it sticks to value 0 ...
maybe I'm not really aware of how the sysfs/features directory should
work, hence I appreciate if you could enlighten me if makes sense to
have this feature there (and if it's OK showing zero or should flip in
case a device makes use of the feature, maybe?).
Yeah, we need sysfs entries for the new feature and test cases that
generally rely on it to determine whether to skip or run the test case.
The paths would be:
- /sys/fs/btrfs/features/..
- /sys/fs/btrfs/<uuid>/features/..
These paths emit only output 0. The presence of the sysfs file indicates
that the feature is supported.
Thanks,
Anand
Thanks in advance,
Guilherme
