On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 03:19:22PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > AFAIK, it shouldn't be failing that way, and should automatically switch to > mixed mode allocation. A 1G filesystem should work fine for BTRFS, but > smaller ones will have higher chances of ENOSPC issues (inversely > proportional to the size of the FS). I would advise against using BTRFS on > such a small disk (I avoid using it on anything smaller than 4G personally), > but I'm not one of the developers, and the fact that I feel it isn't a good > idea doesn't mean it shouldn't work. Instead of modifying generic/224, maybe it would be better to have a way to specify a minimum file system size on a per-file system basis. That way, if some file system does have a minimum size of say, 1G or 4G, it can be configured in one place, instead of needing to modify every test that uses a small file system size, or forcing all file systems to use a larger file systems just for the benefit of a single file system? Or maybe just fix mkfs.btrfs? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
