Any comments? On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:32:27 +0200 David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> wrote:
> I'll comment on the overall approach and skip code-specific comments. > > The changelog does not explain why there's a need for a new blockgroup > type and what's the relation to the existing types. It seems that it > extends the data/metadata/system group, but I think this is totally > wrong. I agree in principle, but I did not want to modify the existing balance targets, but, instead, piggyback on the existing balance implementation to re-balance the data. This approach was recommended to be by an experienced BTrFS developer on the IRC as the right way to implement the change. My previous implementation before asking on the IRC used a new ioctl call to change the hard coded values and then re-write the data (not a good approach in hindsight.) > The proposed changes modify part of the on-disk format, that would > require a incompat bit and brings the usual load of unpleasant issues > with backward compatibility. The current data structures should be > enough for configurable stripe size. If you want to make stripe size > configurable, then replace all hardcoded values of BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN. No re-balance required after passing the stripe size change command? What about the on-disk metadata, that relies on the "stripesize" and "stripe_len" as variables for calculations and the basis of pre-set metadata? Thanks Sanidhya -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
