Re: Are the btrfs mount options inconsistent?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2018/8/20 下午8:24, David Howells wrote:
> David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> No it's not. Compression needs the checksums so nodatasum should disable
>> compression, which is missing as you found out.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Btw, do fs_info->mount_opt end up inscribed on disk as is?  I don't see
> anywhere this obviously happens.

mount_opt should only reflects runtime mount options, and currently
there is no way to store mount option on-disk.

> 
> Can I get rid of BTRFS_MOUNT_NOSSD as it would appear to be superfluous with
> BTRFS_MOUNT_SSD?

As you already found.

But to be more clear, NOSSD shouldn't be a special case.
In fact currently NOSSD only affects whether we will output the message
"enabling ssd optimization", no real effect if I didn't miss anything.

So the the states should be only 3: nossd, ssd, ssd + ssd_spread.

Thanks,
Qu


> 
> David
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux