On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:58:31PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Looks sensible, but maybe we need a pr_info_ratelimited to inform > > the user of this case? > > Why? Now that I've established that the system administrator is and > always has been allowed to invalidate the extent size hints when > realtime volumes are in play, I don't think we need to spam the kernel > log about the admin's strange choices. > > The only reason I put that xfs_info_once thing in 603f00 is because I > mistakenly thought that the only way we could end up with a fs like that > was due to gaps in user input sanitization, i.e. fs isn't supposed to be > weird, but it is anyway. Ok: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
