It seems that we don't need to support * for non-compress. For now, if one file match comp_extention, the dir flag not work, but we can still use comp_file_flag and no_comp_file_flag. So the priority is: dir_flag < comp_extention < comp_file_flag, no_comp_file_flag.
after add no_comp_extention flag, the priority should be: dir_flag < comp_extention < no_comp_extention < comp_file_flag, no_comp_file_flag. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2021年4月20日 0:23 收件人: Fengnan Chang <[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 主题: Re: [f2fs-dev] 答复: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: add no compress extensions support On 04/17, Fengnan Chang wrote: > In this patch, we cannot handle files without extensions. At the moment > there is just a rough idea，test a portion of the data to decide whether > to compress it before performing a full compression. It may need more > test. Any other suggestions? > > In my consider, the non-compress flag has a higher priority than the > compressed flag. > 1. the same extension name cannot not appear in both compress and > non-compress extension at the same time， check this in mount process. > 2. If the compress extension specifies all files, the types specified by > the non-compress extension will be treated as special cases and will not > be compressed. > 3. If the non-compress extension specifies all files, should not specifies > any compress extension, check in mount process too. Do we need to support * for non-compress? > > Any other suggestions? So, what could the priority for all the below combinations? E.g., comp_extention, no_comp_extention, dir_flag, comp_file_flag, no_comp_file_flag. Thanks, _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
