On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 10:12 -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
[snipped]
> >
> > So, my logic is simple. We are trying to modify the on-disk layout. As a
> > result, we need to check the on-disk layout version, from my viewpoint.
> > And this modification is not "feature" itself but simple bug fix. And I
Hello,
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:05:23PM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:13 -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Slava,
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:46:06AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPO
Hi Jaegeuk,
On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:13 -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Slava,
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:46:06AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> ...
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT
> > +#define F2FS_MAX_SUPP_MAJOR_VERSION(2)
> > +#define F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLU
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 01:52 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > I think that it's some confusion. I didn't introduce any new fields in
> > struct f2fs_super_block. The "major_ver" and "minor_ver" fields exist in
> > F2FS superblo
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 01:53 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[snipped]
>
> That goes on to the next question: why do we even need a config option
> for 16TB+ volume support?
>
I believe that it makes sense to have config option during
implementation phase. I mean that it needs to protect this ex
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 02:13:57PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> As Christoph mentioned, how about checking the feature only like this?
>
> 1. if the feature is ON,
> - go 64 bits , when compiled w/ F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT
> - fail to mount, when compiled w/o F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT
>
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> I think that it's some confusion. I didn't introduce any new fields in
> struct f2fs_super_block. The "major_ver" and "minor_ver" fields exist in
> F2FS superblock from the beginning of this file system implementation.
> The cont
Hi Slava,
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:46:06AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
...
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT
> +#define F2FS_MAX_SUPP_MAJOR_VERSION (2)
> +#define F2FS_MIN_16TB_VOLUME_SUPPORT_VERSION (2)
> +#else
> +#define F2FS_MAX_SUPP_MAJOR_VERSION (1)
> +#e
On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 01:25 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > I am not sure that I follow to your point. The F2FS has "feature" field
> > (__le32 feature) into on-disk superblock (struct f2fs_super_block). The
> > suggested pat
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> I am not sure that I follow to your point. The F2FS has "feature" field
> (__le32 feature) into on-disk superblock (struct f2fs_super_block). The
> suggested patch introduces the new F2FS_FEATURE_16TB_SUPPORT flag. And
> it looks
On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 00:58 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Please don't do the mistake of versioning the structure, but instead
> use feature flags, similar to what extN and modern XFS file systems do.
I am not sure that I follow to your point. The F2FS has "feature" field
(__le32 feature) into
Please don't do the mistake of versioning the structure, but instead
use feature flags, similar to what extN and modern XFS file systems do.
From: Vyacheslav Dubeyko
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:58:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: introduce on-disk layout version checking functionality
Currently, F2FS has 16TB limitation on volume size.
But 16TB NAND-based SSDs are around the corner. Unfortunately,
support of 16TB+ volume size needs in
13 matches
Mail list logo
