On 8/13/24 9:39 PM, Hongbo Li wrote:
> Use an array of `fs_parameter_spec` called f2fs_param_specs to
> hold the mount option specifications for the new mount api.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Li
> ---
> fs/f2fs/super.c | 79 +
> 1 file changed, 79 in
Just FWIW -
I had missed this thread when I got temporarily unsubscribed from fsdevel.
I have a series that I was hacking on for this same work, at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sandeen/linux.git/commit/?h=f2fs-mount-api
but it's very rough and almost certainly contains bugs. It
(because Opt_nolazytime is never seen in f2fs
parsing).
If lazytime is desired to be configurable, and default off is OK,
default_options() could be updated to stop setting it by default
and allow mount option control.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
(I came across this when looking at mount API
On 4/4/23 11:27 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index d40de32362b1..b6e99ed3b187 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> #include "xfs_filestream.h"
> #include "xfs_quota.h"
> #include "xfs_sysfs.h"
>
On 7/1/20 3:32 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:59:34AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 6/30/20 12:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:08:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> f2fs and xfs have both adde
On 6/30/20 12:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:08:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> f2fs and xfs have both added support for cgroup writeback:
>>
>> 578c647 f2fs: implement cgroup writeback support
>> adfb5fb xfs: implement cgroup aware wri
f2fs and xfs have both added support for cgroup writeback:
578c647 f2fs: implement cgroup writeback support
adfb5fb xfs: implement cgroup aware writeback
so add them to the supported list in the docs.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
TBH I wonder about the wisdom of having this detail in
the
On 12/28/17 1:09 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
> There's a whole lot more detail in the kernel commit 2be63d5ce929
> ("Btrfs: fix file loss on log replay after renaming a file and
> fsync") but my point is that we considered this a btrfs filesystem
> bug and so changing the test defeats it's purpose
On 12/24/17 10:30 PM, Chen Rong wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年12月25日 13:56, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 12/24/17 9:28 PM, Chen Rong wrote:
>>> Hi, everyone:
>>>
>>> the issue as below:
>> First we need to look - what does the test do?
>>
>> # T
On 12/24/17 9:28 PM, Chen Rong wrote:
> Hi, everyone:
>
> the issue as below:
First we need to look - what does the test do?
# Test that if we rename a file, create a new file that has the old name of the
# other file and is a child of the same parent directory, fsync the new inode,
# power fail
On 2/26/15 7:23 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> The f2fs provides 64KB size with 0 data after fsync was done to directory
> file.
>
> Cc: Filipe Manana
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> ---
> tests/generic/065 | 4
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/generic/065 b/tests/generi
On 1/8/15 2:18 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 01:54:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 1/8/15 12:10 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> This patch add an ioctl to shutdown f2fs, which stops all the further block
>>> writes after this point.
>>
>>
On 1/8/15 12:10 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch add an ioctl to shutdown f2fs, which stops all the further block
> writes after this point.
would it make sense to just re-use the xfs ioctl nr, if the semantics are
the same?
That way any test using it will "just work" on f2fs...
-Eric
> Sign
On 1/8/15 12:31 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This patch triggers the F2FS-related ioctl for godown.
hohum, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just re-use the XFS ioctl
number in f2fs? Then you wouldn't have to duplicate all this code.
If you really want your own unique ioctl number, what about
jus
14 matches
Mail list logo
