On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:42:32AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > v4 is hardly dead end. Feature bits can keep the filesystem stable. > > v5 superblock is experimental and is not the automatically the > default and only version. > > Geoffrey has been expressing concerns about v5 and I agree with > them. We came to the party too late, and despite our concerns, SGI > has worked hard to get the crc pieces reviewed, tested and > committed. The concerns are still there. > > Yes, I am serious. v4 is not dead and should get new features where > appropriate. It really doesn't make any sense to shoe-horn incompatible on-disk features into the old format, with all the required work, and especially the exploding feature matrix. That beeing said I'd have no problem with SGI adding this support if they absolutely required it as long as long as not putting the burden on anyone else. Trying to reject a new feature because it doen't support the legacy disk format is just sad and will not pass the test of time. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
