On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 08:05:12PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/7/12 7:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:20:57AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Default to allowing 64-bit inodes on the filesystem. > >> > >> Add a feature bit to the the superblock to record whether 64 bit inodes have > >> been allocated on the filesystem or not. This allows us to reject mounting the > >> filesytem with inode32 if 64 bit inodes are present. > >> > >> Once a 64 bitinode is allocated, the inode64 superblock feature bit will be set. > >> Once the superblock feature bit is set, the filesystem will default to 64 bit > >> inodes regardless of whether inode64 is specified as a mount option. > >> > >> To ensure only 32 bit inodes are created, the inode32 mount option must be > >> used. If there are already 64 bit inodes as flagged by the superblock feature > >> bit, then the inode32 mount will be refused. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Passing this along to revive the old discussion ... > > > > I have no objections to do this. However, the kernel patch is just > > the tip of the iceberg when it comes to implementing this. > > > > Were there patches for userspace support of the feature bit? I don't > > recall if there were. I'm thinking that xfs_info needs to output > > whether this is set, which means the flag needs to be added to the > > xfs geometry ioctls in the kernel. > > Nope, you just put this patch out as a suggestion, and pointed out > that userspace needed updates too. > > If people are in agreement about this then we can proceed with the rest... Please do. I too have been burned by mounting a filesystem with big inos without the correct mount option. This is a great idea. -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
