[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471F8143.1040605@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:00:43 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Enable delalloc and mballoc by default.
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>> @@ -1279,6 +1280,9 @@ clear_qf_name:
>> case Opt_delalloc:
>> set_opt (sbi->s_mount_opt, DELALLOC);
>> break;
>
> If delalloc, mballoc, extents are the new defaults, is there a reason to
> keep them as options? When would you need to specify -o extents, now,
> for example? (though my brain is fuzzy today, maybe I'm missing
> something) If this were not a filesystem ending in "dev" I could see
> keeping it for compatibility with existing fstabs....
>
Most of the options have the <option> no<option> pairs. I guess we would
need it so that kernel won't throw the error "Unrecognized mount option "
I am also not sure whether we will have the above patch merged upstream
when we push mballoc and delalloc.
>> + case Opt_nodelalloc:
>> + clear_opt (sbi->s_mount_opt, DELALLOC);
>> + break;
>> case Opt_mballoc:
>> set_opt(sbi->s_mount_opt, MBALLOC);
>> break;
>> @@ -1824,6 +1828,8 @@ static int ext4_fill_super (struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>> * User -o noextents to turn it off
>> */
>
> I'd either update this comment ^^^^ or remove it, I think.
>
>>
I will remove it. Anybody reading the kernel code should be able to figure it out.
-aneesh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists