[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190902152451.GC179615@architecture4>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:24:52 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Li Guifu <bluce.liguifu@...wei.com>,
Fang Wei <fangwei1@...wei.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/24] erofs: add super block operations
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:19:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 10:43:04PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Hi Christoph,
> > > > ...
> > > > 24 __le32 features; /* (aka. feature_compat) */
> > > > ...
> > > > 38 __le32 requirements; /* (aka. feature_incompat) */
> > > > ...
> > > > 41 };
> > >
> > > This is only cosmetic, why not stick to feature_compat and
> > > feature_incompat?
> >
> > Okay, will fix. (however, in my mind, I'm some confused why
> > "features" could be incompatible...)
>
> The feature is incompatible if it requires changes to the driver.
> An easy to understand historic example is that ext3 originally did not
> have the file types in the directory entry. Adding them means old
> file system drivers can not read a file system with this new feature,
> so an incompat flag has to be added.
Got it.
>
> > > > > > + memcpy(&sb->s_uuid, layout->uuid, sizeof(layout->uuid));
> > > > > > + memcpy(sbi->volume_name, layout->volume_name,
> > > > > > + sizeof(layout->volume_name));
> > > > >
> > > > > s_uuid should preferably be a uuid_t (assuming it is a real BE uuid,
> > > > > if it is le it should be a guid_t).
> > > >
> > > > For this case, I have no idea how to deal with...
> > > > I have little knowledge about this uuid stuff, so I just copied
> > > > from f2fs... (Could be no urgent of this field...)
> > >
> > > Who fills out this field in the on-disk format and how?
> >
> > mkfs.erofs, but this field leaves 0 for now. Is that reasonable?
> > (using libuuid can generate it easily...)
>
> If the filed is always zero for now please don't fill it out. If you
> decide it is worth adding the uuid eventually please add a compat
> feature flag that you have a valid uuid and only fill out the field
> if the file system actualy has a valid uuid.
Okay. Will do that then (as a note here).
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists