From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: speed up _require_ext4_bigalloc and _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:02:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20140908120213.GF1066@thunk.org> References: <20140907192110.GC1066@thunk.org> <1410141968-17551-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1410141968-17551-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20140908095000.GD30012@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, wangxg.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, eguan@redhat.com To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:43424 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753771AbaIHMCr (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:02:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140908095000.GD30012@dastard> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:50:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 10:06:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > We don't need to make a full-sized file system in order to test > > whether "mkfs.ext4 -O bigalloc" works. > > Why wouldn't you just use the "-n" option? If bigalloc is not > supported, that should still fail, right? Good point. We still need to make the file system for _require_ext4_bigalloc, but there's no need to create one for _require_ext4_mkfs_bigalloc. - Ted