On 08/22/2013 02:19 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Gents, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Geoffrey Wehrman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:02:26PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >> | I'm very, very, very unhappy about how this situation is unfolding. >> >> As am I. > > Mark provided some mkfs code to test the v4 feature bit with, and it > worked fine for me. > > Given that we are protected by a feature bit, I feel that pulling in the > v4 feature is considerably less risky than what we did in 3.10, with > Dave still cleaning up his mess in -rc6, so go ahead and call me > reckless: I've pulled in both v4 and v5 versions of this code. > > Mark, please post your mkfs code ASAP, even though Dave hasn't reposted > his userspace series yet. > > Everybody gets his code in and nobody is happy. > > -Ben Mark's v4 dirent patches seem to work on 32-bit x86. I happen to agree 100% with Dave on this issue. However, lacking a dirent test and xfs_db skills, I threw everything else and the kitchen sink at v4-dirent XFS and did not find any evidence to back up Dave's argument. So I'll tip my cap to Mark for his insight on the matter, hoping that his testing skills are fine as always. Thanks! Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
