Hi Dave, On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:11:10PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > New CRC patchset. Previous versions: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-01/msg00328.html > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-02/msg00451.html > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00291.html > > This version is based on 3.9-rc4 + TOT xfsdev. 3.9-rc5 has loopback > bugs that make it useless for testing, so I've just kept my tree on > -rc4. > > New in this patch set: > > - numerous bug fixes > - cleanups to addresse Bens review comments > - logs entire inode allocation buffers > - reworks the buffer type tracking for log recovery > - fixes the endian issues reported by sparse > - splits out the symlink code rearrangement > - adds support for v5 superblock feature masks > - add mount warnings about CRC support being experimental > > Still to do: > > - Documentation (half written, not in series) > - DT_* type fields in the directory entries. This can be > done with a feature bit if not done in time. > - storage of attributes larger than 256 bytes in shortform > attribute forks. Same comment about a feature bit. > > The addition of the feature mask support to the superblock added a > new field to the superblock - a log compatibility feature mask. This > is to allow new transactions and recovery features to be added and > prevent kernels that don't understand those features from performing > log recovery. The idea is that clean logs can be mounted by kernels > that don't support the new feature if everything else is compatible, > but if they require log recovery the mount will be aborted. This > means pure log changes don't require a compat/incompat/rocompat > feature bit to be set. > > The result of adding this is that all the old CRC enabled > filesystems will not work with this kernel - the CRC field location > changed, and that makes the mount fail hard. So a new userspace will > be needed to test the CRC side of this patchset. (Coming soon!) > > Comments, testing welcome... I've pulled in this series. There are still a few outstanding questions from review. I'm confident that we can get them sorted in the coming week. Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
