On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 16:14, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> Hi, Kevin.
>
> On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 19:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:08:46AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM Zbigniew
Hi, Kevin.
On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 19:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:08:46AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > I'm
Neal Gompa wrote:
> This didn't become a serious problem until Red Hat made the
> unfortunate (though not realized at the time) mistake of switching to
> 64k pages for ARM and POWER. We got that change in Fedora for POWER
> but not ARM. It has led to all kinds of unfortunate problems that are
>
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:33 pm, Steven Munroe
wrote:
The correct solution for userland is getpagesize() from .
This API has been there a long time.
Some software requires that the page size be known at compile time,
e.g. WebKit's JavaScriptCore. Therefore getpagesize() is really not
good
The correct solution for userland is getpagesize() from .
This API has been there a long time.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:08:46AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> > > even more
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> > even more annoyed that I basically have no way to even test or deal
> > with these
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> even more annoyed that I basically have no way to even test or deal
> with these things. We *still* do not have packager test machines, so I
> can't even figure out
On 18/09/2020 14:34, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:19 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16/09/2020 21:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> At the time we tied the
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:19 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/09/2020 21:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> At the time we tied the fs blocksize to the
> >>> page size, because it
On 16/09/2020 21:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> At the time we tied the fs blocksize to the
>>> page size, because it was unlikely that a user would mkfs a fs on one
>>> arch
>>> and
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:32 AM Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> > On 9/15/20 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > >>> One issue I've come across is
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Block > page size is a different problem vs what is described in this
> thread.
Well, the thread is about block size ≠ page size, of which that is one of
the two cases to handle.
Though of course, if (as is the case for xfs), mkfs does not produce large
block sizes by
On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
At the time we tied the fs blocksize to the
page size, because it was unlikely that a user would mkfs a fs on one arch
and move it over to another arch.
But one doesn't need "another
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> At the time we tied the fs blocksize to the
> page size, because it was unlikely that a user would mkfs a fs on one arch
> and move it over to another arch.
But one doesn't need "another arch" for page size to change; many
On 9/14/20 3:31 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Given the plans to make btrfs the default, I'll share some of my own
recent experiences, hopefully this can make it easier for the next person
One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
on hosts with the same page size as
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:15 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> > even more annoyed that I basically have no way to even test or deal
> > with these things. We
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> even more annoyed that I basically have no way to even test or deal
> with these things. We *still* do not have packager test machines, so I
> can't even figure out
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:05 PM Tom Seewald wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler > wrote:
> >
> > I hate to break it to you, but this problem is not just in
> > filesystems, it's in basically everything in the kernel. And we've had
> > variations of problems like this for
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> I hate to break it to you, but this problem is not just in
> filesystems, it's in basically everything in the kernel. And we've had
> variations of problems like this for years (endianness, page size,
> pointer size, single bit vs
On 9/16/20 10:22 AM, Benjamin Block wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
>> Sub-page block support in filesystems is not a wild, esoteric, unexpected
>> feature.
>>
>
> These kinds of problems are not really that rare across different
> Filesystems.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/15/20 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >>> One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
> >>> on hosts with the same
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:32 AM Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> On 9/15/20 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >>> One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
> >>> on hosts with the same page
On 9/15/20 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
>>> on hosts with the same page size as the host that created the filesystem
>>
>> Ewww! That alone
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
> > on hosts with the same page size as the host that created the filesystem
>
> Ewww! That alone should disqualify btrfs as a default file
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
> on hosts with the same page size as the host that created the filesystem
Ewww! That alone should disqualify btrfs as a default file system!
Why does a file system depend on the kernel page size? The
Given the plans to make btrfs the default, I'll share some of my own
recent experiences, hopefully this can make it easier for the next person
One issue I've come across is that a btrfs filesystem can only be used
on hosts with the same page size as the host that created the filesystem
E.g.
27 matches
Mail list logo
