On 2011-06-02, at 8:59 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
> 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.
I'm perfectly OK with using ext4dev as a filesystem type that allows testing
changes to ext4 on a system that is already running ext4 as the root fs.
> 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...)
No, but it's not like this is affecting a lot of tools, just one that is
used by filesystem developers.
> So I'm ok with sprinkling "ext4|ext4dev" around if necessary. Anyone else
The other alternative is to change all of the "ext2|ext3|ext4|ext4dev" case
statements to be "ext[2-9]*", or "ext[3-9]*", or "ext[4-9]*" for checks that
are only valid for newer codes and be done with it. It's a lot easier to
read, and we don't have to change it again should we ever get ext5 or whatever
(hopefully btrfs will be ready before that, but who knows).