xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add support for ext4dev FSTYP

To: "Amir G." <amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add support for ext4dev FSTYP
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:59:35 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sergey57@xxxxxxxxx, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <BANLkTimKV3LxugkW6_cE5vutjcmatESXuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1306933012-8666-1-git-send-email-amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110601232804.GL32466@dastard> <BANLkTi=sV5=PyZvNSd=DGNW-V84=27d7Yw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTimbPWfOJKq6er4mnSYNPcx6VHLcrw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTimKV3LxugkW6_cE5vutjcmatESXuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 6/2/11 2:16 AM, Amir G. wrote:

> OK, after upgrading to newer util-linux and building it from git,
> which also didn't help, I finally found who to blame - me.
> I had an old (noauto) entry in /etc/fstab which claimed that /dev/sda5 is 
> ext4.
> fsck was picking up that entry and insisting that /dev/sda5 is ext4
> (regardless of what it really is)
> blkid isn't doing that silly thing.
> 
> Amir

So where are we at with all this?

I don't really mind adding ext4dev to FSTYP case statements, it -is- something 
which blkid could, in theory, still return, and making xfstests cope with that 
and try to invoke fsck -t ext4dev doesn't bother me too much.  It is sadly an 
fs type embedded into a few tools.

But other than that, I don't think we should be making changes to upstream 
projects based on your current development hacks (I don't mean hack in a bad 
way, just that running sed across ext4 to create your custom filesystem for 
testing should not require upstream projects to change...)

So I'm ok with sprinkling "ext4|ext4dev" around if necessary.  Anyone else 
disagree?

-Eric

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