[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06344e9f-a625-4f6e-8b23-329ee8ebf67f@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 13:48:41 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de,
cem@...nel.org
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
mcgrof@...nel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES
On 30/09/2024 13:54, John Garry wrote:
> @@ -352,11 +352,15 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
> #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT (1 << 1) /* reverse map btree */
> #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK (1 << 2) /* reflinked files */
> #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3) /* inobt block counts */
> +#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ATOMICWRITES (1 << 31) /* atomicwrites enabled */
> +
BTW, Darrick, as you questioned previously, this does make xfs/270
fail... until the change to a not use the top bit.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists