On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 05:21:06PM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Diego Calleja <diegocg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Jueves, 21 de Octubre de 2010 17:46:58 David Nicol escribió: >> >> Does this mixing constitute a forbidden change of on-disk format, and >> >> if not how not? >> > >> > It doesn't need a format change. The difference between a data and >> > a metadata block group is just an allocation hint AFAIK. >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > >> >> Let me know if the problems with an un-patched kernel were un-expected. >> >> I can provide more information on the crash when booting an older kernel. > > Nope they are expected, it's not a disk format change, but older kernels won't > deal with mixed block groups. When something like this goes mainline, is it used by default/automatically? I ask because I maintain a btrfs-based rollback initramfs hook [1], and am currently updating it for extlinux, enabling kernel-level system rollbacks via `btrfs set-default` + reboot (or maybe `kexec`)... rolling back to an old kernel will then blow up my machine (figuratively of course :-)? C Anthony [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33376 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
