On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:59:24AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:29:46AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Thanks for the review Brian, I'll walk over it and fix the points you mentioned. > > > > > > > > > I still don't really get why we have separate -l and -s options here. It > > > seems to me that the behavior of -l already gives us the information > > > that -s does. Even if that's not obvious enough, the -l command could > > > just print out both. For example: > > > > > > "Largest inode: 1234 (32-bit)" > > > > I agree with you here, but, I'll let Dave answer this question, maybe he had > > some another idea for it that I'm not aware of. > > No preference here; all that I was suggesting was that if you want > to know whether inodes are 32/64 bit it doesn't matter what the > largest inode number is. > > i.e. "Can I mount this with inode32 and have no problems (yes/no)?" > > And it's a lot easier to just query for *any* 64 bit inode than it > is to find the largest inode number... > > If you want to combine the two, then that's fine by me. > Honestly, I think having separated commands are easier for that, it doesn't require users of that the need of parsing the output for example, so, honestly I believe it's better to have it in different commands, I'm also wondering if wouldn't be better to return "1" when there are 64bits in the FS and "0" if not, other than 32/64, so it can be used as a true or false return. > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
