Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES

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

 



On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:48:41PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 30/09/2024 13:54, John Garry wrote:
>> @@ -352,11 +352,15 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT   (1 << 1)		/* reverse map btree */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK  (1 << 2)		/* reflinked files */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3)		/* inobt block counts */
>> +#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ATOMICWRITES (1 << 31)	/* atomicwrites enabled */
>> +
>
> BTW, Darrick, as you questioned previously, this does make xfs/270 fail... 
> until the change to a not use the top bit.

With the large block size based atomic writes we shoudn't even need
a feature flag, or am I missing something?





[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