On 2014-03-16 14:31, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:06:10 +0300, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Andreas Rohner wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h b/include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h
>>>>> index ff3fea3..ca269ad 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h
>>>>> @@ -614,11 +614,13 @@ struct nilfs_cpfile_header {
>>>>> * @su_lastmod: last modified timestamp
>>>>> * @su_nblocks: number of blocks in segment
>>>>> * @su_flags: flags
>>>>> + * @su_lastdec: last decrement of su_nblocks timestamp
>>>>> */
>>>>> struct nilfs_segment_usage {
>>>>> __le64 su_lastmod;
>>>>> __le32 su_nblocks;
>>>>> __le32 su_flags;
>>>>> + __le64 su_lastdec;
>>>>
>>>> So, this change makes on-disk layout incompatible with previous one.
>>>> Am I correct? At first it needs to be fully confident that we really need in
>>>> changing in this place. Secondly, it needs to add incompatible flag for
>>>> s_feature_incompat field of superblock and maybe mount option.
>>>
>>> No it IS compatible. NILFS uses the entry sizes stored in the super
>>> block. Notice, that the code does not depend on sizeof(struct
>>> nilfs_suinfo) or sizeof(struct nilfs_segment_usage). So an old kernel
>>> can read a file system with su_lastdec and a new kernel can read an old
>>> file system without su_lastdec.
>>
>> But, anyway, I think that you add some new feature by this and previous
>> patches. I suppose that it makes sense to add specially dedicated flag or
>> flags in s_feature_xxx field of superblock. If feature is compatible with
>> previous state of driver then flag can be added for s_feature_compat
>> field.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
>
> This is important thing. Please evaluate backward compatibility and
> forward compatibility of modifications, and properly add one of
> incompat, compat_ro, or compat flags as Vyacheslav mentioned. It will
> be a focal point of early stage review.
Ok, I have to look into these flags.
I reuse su_nblocks to represent the number of live blocks, which gets
incremented and decremented as files are deleted and snapshots
created/removed. That is definitely incompatible. Is it better to set a
incompat flag or should I define a new field like su_nliveblocks? With a
new field it could be compatible with older drivers, but it would add
another 8 bytes to the structure.
But if I understood you correctly I need to add a new feature flag in
any case.
Regards,
Andreas Rohner
> Regards,
> Ryusuke Konishi
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
