[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9989a2a6-f07a-43be-829f-74562aa212a2@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:39:44 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
catherine.hoang@...cle.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] xfs: Introduce FORCEALIGN inode flag
On 24/07/2024 00:38, Dave Chinner wrote:
> What's the problem with supporting it right from the start?
Simply because I wanted to focus on regular data volume support first.
> We
> already support forcealign for RT, just it's a global config
> under the "big rt alloc" moniker rather than a per-inode flag.
>
> Like all on-disk format change based features,
> forcealign should add the EXPERIMENTAL flag to the filesystem for a
> couple of releases after merge, so there will be plenty of time to
> test both data and rt dev functionality before removing the
> EXPERIMENTAL flag from it.
>
> So why not just enable the per-inode flag with RT right from the
> start given that this functionality is supposed to work and be
> globally supported by the rtdev right now? It seems like a whole lot
> less work to just enable it for RT now than it is to disable it...
I'll have a look... if it really is that easy, then - yes - we can have
it from the start.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists