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.