Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:03:03 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: erofs: Question on unused fields in on-disk structs
Message-ID: <20190821220251.GA3954@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
References: <1323459733.69859.1566234633793.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190819204504.GB10075@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <CAFLxGvxr2UMeVa29M9pjLtWMFPz7w6udRV38CRxEF1moyA9_Rw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFLxGvxr2UMeVa29M9pjLtWMFPz7w6udRV38CRxEF1moyA9_Rw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Richard,

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:37:30PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Gao Xiang,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:45 PM Gao Xiang via Linux-erofs
> <linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org> wrote:
> > > struct erofs_super_block has "checksum" and "features" fields,
> > > but they are not used in the source.
> > > What is the plan for these?
> >
> > Yes, both will be used laterly (features is used for compatible
> > features, we already have some incompatible features in 5.3).
> 
> Good. :-)
> I suggest to check the fields being 0 right now.
> Otherwise you are in danger that they get burned if an mkfs.erofs does not
> initialize the fields.

Sorry... I cannot get the point...

super block chksum could be a compatible feature right? which means
new kernel can support it (maybe we can add a warning if such image
doesn't have a chksum then when mounting) but old kernel doesn't
care it.

Or maybe you mean these reserved fields? I have no idea all other
filesystems check these fields to 0 or not... But I think it should
be used with some other flag is set rather than directly use, right?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> //richard