On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:05:31AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > In that case one file with the list of supported values is a better
> > option. The main point is to have full RW support, until then it's
> > interesting only for developers and they know what to expect.
> >
> Indeed only full RW support makes sense.
> BTW, any comment on the file name? If no problem I would just use
> "supported_sectorsize" in next update.
> Although I hope the sysfs interface can be merged separately early, so
> that I can add the proper support in btrfs-progs.

Yeah, exporting the information via sysfs is the easy stuff so you can
postpone it as you need.

Reply via email to