xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bugreport - not really important

To: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bugreport - not really important
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:20:43 +0100
Cc: GCS <gcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tom Duffy <tduffy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <yq1bsqwr1dh.fsf@jaguar.mkp.net>; from mkp@linuxcare.com on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 08:55:22AM -0500
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103200223470.2403-100000@dbear.engr.sgi.com> <yq1bsqwr1dh.fsf@jaguar.mkp.net>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 08:55:22AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Duffy <tduffy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> Tom> what I am surprised about is that xfs did not replace the magic
> Tom> number that tells the kernel and other tools what type of fs it
> Tom> is.  otherwise, the reiser tools do not verify this number (or
> Tom> assume it could be corrupted).
> 
> The problem here is that every fs puts its superblock a different
> place.  XFS has it on block 0, and reiserfs' is 64K from the beginning
> of the device.

This means it is impossible to install lilo on a XFS partition (as opposed 
to the MBR) 


-Andi

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