Hey,
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:24:45AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:26:47AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:01:59PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > This is my current kernel bug fix patch series. I've updated it
> > > against a current xfsdev tree, and contains all the fixes mentioned
> > > in the "fixes for 3.10-rc2 (updated)" thread. The first 7 patches
> > > are patches from that series. The last 4 are new patches.
> > >
> > > The first new patch stops CRC enabled filesystems from spamming the
> > > log. It currently emits an "Experimental" warning ever time the
> > > superblock is written, which is typically every 30s.
> > >
> > > The second path ("rework remote attr CRCs") is the changes I
> > > mentioned in the "fixes for 3.10-rc2 (updated)" thread. The code is
> > > far more robust as a result of these changes, and I think we really
> > > need to change the format as done in this patch. Once we have
> > > decided on the way forward, I'll port this to userspace.
> > >
> > > The third patch fixes a remote symlink problem - I didn't hit this
> > > until I'd redone the remote attr CRCs and the 1k block size
> > > filesystem testing made it passed the attribute tests it was failing
> > > on.
> > >
> > > Finally, the last patch is another on-disk format change - one that
> > > removes the 25 entry limit on ACLs. It doesn't invalidate anything
> > > that is already on disk, just allows ACLs on v5 superblock
> > > filesystems to store more than 25 ACLs in an xattr. In fact, it
> > > allows (65536 - 4) / 12 = 5461 entries to be stored in a single
> > > ACL, so I don't see anyone running out on v5 superblocks....
> > >
> > > Thoughts, comments?
> >
> > I'll look into these but I am concerned that we're starting to get into 3.11
> > territory.
>
> The moment we release the first kernel with the format in it, we
> need to use feature bits for on-disk format changes, experimental
> tag or not. Hence IMO this needs to be fixed before an initial
> release.
There's plenty of bits to go around. ;)
> It's not a huge change from a code perspective, and it's a lot more
> reliable in my testing....
I'm just a bit leery of a redesign at this late juncture. We always seem to
get into trouble at the last minute... Another option is to revert just the
xattr crc support and slap it back in once it has stablized after the release,
but we need to flip a bit for that too... Anyway, I need to look your proposed
code to see what's what.
Seems like xattrs might be one area where we could use some work in xfstests?
-Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
