Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] xfs: Introduce FORCEALIGN inode flag

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





So what about forcealign and RT?
Any opinion on this?
What about forcealign and RT?
In this series version I was mounting the whole FS as RO if
XFS_FEAT_FORCEALIGN and XFS_FEAT_REFLINK was found in the SB. And so very
different to how I was going to individual treat inodes which happen to be
forcealign and reflink, above.

So I was asking guidance when whether that approach (for RT and forcealign)
is sound.
I reiterate: don't allow mounting of (forcealign && reflink) or
(forcealign && rtextsize > 1) filesystems, and then you and I can work
on figuring out the rest.

I'm fine with that approach for forcealign && reflink (no mounting).

As for forcealign && rtextsize > 1 it seems to be working for me. That is with not too many changes, so maybe we can go with this support initially. Personally I'd rather not, as testing may be spread too thin. Anyway, I'll send the patches early next week and we can make the judgement then.







[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux