On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:18:53AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:40:59AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > There are a few xfstests that check the contents of the CoW extent fork > > > to make sure it's working properly. How about a compromise -- leave the > > > flag in, but return -EINVAL unless CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y ? > > > > Personally I'd prefer to remove it. Maybe we'll need Dave as a tie > > breaker? > > Well, I kinda see it like reporting delalloc extents - they are > in-memory, but we can report them to userspace even though they will > change shortly. I don't think it's generally useful, but right now > we need all the validation checks we can get. > > <shrug> > > Ok, Darrick, let's make it debug only right now so those tests work > while we get this code all sorted. And then plan to remove it before > we remove the EXPERIMENTAL flag from reflink? Sounds fine with me. --D > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" 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-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
