[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKcLGm_cMiEBinmSxkWpY9jm8tW1qbBALcNS-u7DNQhHRF+NFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:19:14 -0500
From: Mitch Harder <mitch.harder@...ayonlinux.org>
To: dave@...os.cz, Arnd Hannemann <arnd@...dnet.de>,
chris.mason@...ionio.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ierdnah@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Btrfs: allow mount -o remount,compress=no
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Sterba <dave@...os.cz> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:48:37AM +0200, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
>> How show should we proceed to get above mentioned patch
>> (or the similar patch from Andrei Popa) merged?
>
> Josef picked the patch into btrfs-next, I see not problem to include it
> in next merge window patchset.
>
I was testing the lz4(hc) patches, and I found the the compression
INCOMPAT flags are not being updated using the method in this patch.
The compression INCOMPAT flags are generally checked and updated in
the open_ctree() function.
But, on remount, open_ctree() is not called.
I was going to test a patch to update the INCOMPAT flags similar to
the way lzo INCOMPAT is updated when specifying the compress method in
defragmentation.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-btrfs/2010/11/18/6886194
But, let me know if it is preferred to just return -EINVAL when trying
to remount with a compression method that has an INCOMPAT not yet seen
by that volume.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists