On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:42:21AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > So, after thinking about this (and talking on irc) some more, I'm > not convinced that a feature flag is the way to go. > > If we set a feature flag, suddenly old filesystems with 64-bit > inodes will grow a new feature, and this will force a userspace > upgrade - but there is no real new feature. This seems like a bad > idea. My original patch (which Dave responded to with this one) > simply made inode64 default, with no feature flags. > > Unless someone has a really compelling argument for the flag, > I'm thinking this is the wrong approach after all. > > Perhaps I should resend the just-make-it-default patch. > > Comments? I was thinking about this sort of scenario. You are right, there's no on-disk format change. My initial thought about how to handle this was to just make inode64 the default on 64-bit builds. I think the feature flag idea is good because it essentially acts as a taint flag - much like the attr2 feature flag. The difference is, in the inode64 case... 1) it's the same on-disk format 2) there are years of ambiguous-inode filesystems out there Out of curiosity...is there a reason we can't do both? Default to 64-bit, and slowly introduce the 64-bit inodes feature flag? Jeff. -- What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers? Mechanical Engineers build weapons, Civil Engineers build targets. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
