xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mount problem 2.6.5 kernel

To: lawalsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mount problem 2.6.5 kernel
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:22:01 +1000
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <40882CC4.6050505@xxxxxxxxx>; from xfs@xxxxxxxxx on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:36:20PM -0700
References: <4086DFF9.9080807@xxxxxxxxx> <20040422071403.C436928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40882CC4.6050505@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:36:20PM -0700, lawalsh wrote:
> >
> >Blocksize cannot be larger than pagesize - the kernel is right
> >to fail this mount request.
> >
>     For those of us losing or gaining a bit in pagesize now and then,
> perhaps it would be good for mkfs.xfs to either deny create or warn
> on creating fs's on the system architecture it is being created on? 
> 
> How often does one create a fs under linux that they can't copy
> anything onto -- just mkfs it, then move the filesystem to another
> architecture where it is supported? 
> 
> I'd be tempted to add an "-ff" switch to mkfs to really force creating
> a file system that will be unusable on the system creating it.

well, thats tricky on ia64 right? (where pagesize is configurable).
I guess people just need to know to read dmesg when mount fails;
not much more we can really do from an xfs point of view.  as long
as we're putting a sensible message there that explains the issue,
we should be ok.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>