[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091205042556.GA7426@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:55:56 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Please reserve INCOMPAT flags
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:15:11PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2009-09-06, at 03:25, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >in addition to the data-in-dirent INCOMPAT flag Rahul sent the patches
> >for last week, I would like to ensure that we also have the INCOMPAT
> >flag for large EA-in-inode flag reserved. This patch is going into
> >testing at one of our large customers, and I want to make sure that
> >we don't accidentally get a conflicting INCOMPAT flag assignment.
> >
> >#define EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EA_INODE 0x0400
> >#define EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_DIRDATA 0x1000
> >
> >#define EXT4_EA_INODE_FL 0x00200000 /* Inode uses large EA */
>
>
> Hi Ted,
> I noticed Aneesh proposing to use the 0x0400 INCOMPAT flag for the
> NFSv4 ACL support, but this conflicts with the large EA feature we
> had previously discussed. We now have a couple of customers using
> the large EA feature at this point, and I wouldn't want to break
> their filesystem as a result of an avoidable conflict.
>
> I'll attach patches for this, which will hopefully make it easier,
> and the patch tracking tool will keep this visible.
>
> Aneesh, maybe you can use 0x0800 for the INCOMPAT_RICHACL?
>
>
I have updated richacl patches to use 0x0800.
-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