Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] xfs: Support FS_XFLAG_ATOMICWRITES

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:48:41PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 30/09/2024 13:54, John Garry wrote:
>> @@ -352,11 +352,15 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT   (1 << 1)		/* reverse map btree */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK  (1 << 2)		/* reflinked files */
>>   #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3)		/* inobt block counts */
>> +#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_ATOMICWRITES (1 << 31)	/* atomicwrites enabled */
>> +
>
> BTW, Darrick, as you questioned previously, this does make xfs/270 fail... 
> until the change to a not use the top bit.

With the large block size based atomic writes we shoudn't even need
a feature flag, or am I missing something?