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?
