On 8/18/15 1:53 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:18:50PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> mkfs.xfs got weird along the way; today it has different outcomes >> depending on the order of option specification: >> >> $ mkfs/mkfs.xfs -n ftype=1 -m crc=0 -dfile,name=fsfile,size=16g >> cannot specify both crc and ftype >> $ mkfs/mkfs.xfs -m crc=0 -n ftype=1 -dfile,name=fsfile,size=16g >> <succeeds> >> >> Somehow the tests got written as being constrained on what options >> are specified - and in what order! - vs actually testing for >> incompatible feature sets. >> >> It's fine to specify both crc & ftype options, as long as it's an >> allowed combination, so just test for the incompatible combination >> (crc=1 and ftype=0) after all options have been processed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Did you test this, Eric? Yep... > $ mkfs.xfs /dev/sdc > cannot disable ftype with crcs enabled > Usage: mkfs.xfs > /* blocksize */ [-b log=n|size=num] > ..... God, but not with defaults! I tested w/ all combinations of ftype/crc specified. :( ... > So we enable crcs by default and do not enable dirftype/nftype by > default, and so by default mkfs now fails. I'll fix it to always > default to ftype=1 for both v4 and v5 filesystems as there is no go > reason not to enable it. Hell. Sorry about that. Thanks for catching ... Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
