On 2020/3/22 上午1:45, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 09:43:21AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2020/3/21 上午2:43, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> We are incorrectly dropping the raid56 and raid1c34 incompat flags when
>>> there are still raid56 and raid1c34 block groups, not when we do not any
>>> of those anymore. The logic just got unintentionally broken after adding
>>> the support for the raid1c34 modes.
>>>
>>> Fix this by clear the flags only if we do not have block groups with the
>>> respective profiles.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9c907446dce3 ("btrfs: drop incompat bit for raid1c34 after last block group is gone")
>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The fix is OK.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Just interesting do we really need to remove such flags?
>> To me, keep the flag is completely sane.
>
> So you'd suggest to keep a flag for a feature that's not used on the
> filesystem so it's not possible to mount the filesystem on an older
> kernel?
>
If user is using this feature, they aren't expecting mounting it on
older kernel either.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
