blkid knows to identify the ext4dev FSTYP of a partition that was formatted with mkfs.ext4dev. quota tools and various util-linux utils are also aware of ext4dev, so ext4dev shares the same capabilit
I rechecked the fsck -t ext4dev vs. fsck.ext4dev. fsck -t ext4dev doesn't work for me :-( Sergey has a newer version of util-linux-ng see: amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ sudo fsck -t ext4dev -nf /dev/sda5 fs
For filessytems that use the generic fsck multiplexor, yes. In general, no. XFS is a special case in that fsck.xfs is a no-op - it does no checking at all and only returns values needed for init scri
no. not a big deal at all. The features are going into mainline, but are not there yet. I did not invent the ext4dev standard, which is pretty well supported by all relevant tools, but I find it very
So using feature bits as they were intended is the right thing to do, isn't it? As I understand it, ext4dev is deprecated and should not be used for any new filesystems. When did that status change?
I am not sure what you mean by that. The fact that to this day fsck.ext2/3/4 have always been the same file (hence support the same feature set) does not mean that they have to be that way by design.
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
And that's perfectly fine, you can use whatever you want on you system. ext4dev is not a tool for ext4 developers. It has been deprecated and does not exist anymore, looking at kernel config there is
Ted actually brought this up in our ext4 developers meeting on LSF. He said we could register an ext4 module with the ext4dev external symbols and it would be useful for testing, since we already hav
--snip-- I know, but my point is still valid. why to introduce non-existing FSTYP into other tools, this is not proper course of action. If the goal is really resurrect ext4dev we should do this firs
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
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. No, but it's not like this is affecting a lot of
My take on this is that way too much time has been spent this subject. Being able to use ext4dev is useful, and given that we have all of this support in our existing system tools, why not use it to
f it is ext4 community decides that ext4dev is not deprecated then I don't have any objection. It won't cause me any PEBKAC problems. ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think we just want to make sure we understand the reasons for a change. Every change has risks, and xfstests is used on a lot of different systems. If I don't fully understand the motivation for a
No doubt. I blame only myself for not presenting the case correctly. I made it sound like I am trying to push my own private hack upstream. Actually, all 10 people involved in snapshot development cl
Well, if anyone doesn't like beer, here are my low-tech ext4dev clone scripts ;-) ext4: scripts to clone and build ext4dev fs with default config options diff --git a/clone_ext4dev.sh b/clone_ext4dev