[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bugzilla entries for XFS in Fedora Core 2 test 3

To: Seth Mos <seth.mos@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bugzilla entries for XFS in Fedora Core 2 test 3
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 20:48:15 +0200
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
References: <1083275408.1106.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1083275408.1106.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316
Hi Seth.

I did a test install for Fedora Core 2 test 3 using XFS.
In order to enable XFS in the Fedora installer, when the installer boots
up, at the very first prompt, enter "linux xfs" (or "linux text xfs" to
run the installer in text mode).
I've found a few bugs which i filed to Bugzilla:
The numbers of the bugs are:

looks like redhat is getting lazy here




XFS does labels just fine, something else is going on here, in fact I
have a fedora core setup which is all XFS (except /boot because of
the grub issue). I have about 4 filesystems which all mount fine,
but I am using device mapper for them all which probably changes
the mount sequence.

Because XFS labels can not be as long as the ext2/3 variants some of the mountpoints are botched if it is mounted deep in the structure.

The label will then not be set on the device and thus the filesystem can not be mounted during install I believe.

This is an older issue, because of this XFS mount by label was disabled since the 1.0.2 series IIRC.

What's the limit of label length?

I believe there's a setting in anaconda one can make and the bug
could well be that anaconda doesn't honor that flag, but I believe
it's there.

So either it's not set / set too high or it's not honored.

So what is the max length of the label?

// Stefan

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