Johannes Hirte wrote:
Am Freitag 11 Dezember 2009 16:27:54 schrieb Edward Shishkin:
Johannes Hirte wrote:
Am Freitag 11 Dezember 2009 12:17:29 schrieb Edward Shishkin:
Johannes Hirte wrote:
Am Freitag 11 Dezember 2009 00:15:46 schrieb Johannes Hirte:
Am Freitag 25 September 2009 00:06:23 schrieb Edward Shishkin:
Hello everyone.
...
The following patches are for Fedora 10(**).
The distro-independent package will be put to kernel.org a bit later.
All comments, bugreports, etc. are welcome as usual.
Ok, I have another comment/bugreport *g*.
I'm testing this patch with gentoo, so the grub sources are not
identicaly the same. With this patches applied, grub is unable to
detect JFS or XFS filesystems. XFS is reported as unknown, JFS is
reported as btrfs. Reiserfs and ext2/3 are detected as expected.
Yes, this patch is for Fedora. For other distros
some issues are possible, so please be careful..
I've also tested now with the fedora sources. There is the same bug. The
btrfs patch breaks the filesystem detection. All filesystems after btrfs
in fsys_table aren't detected. Moving btrfs to the end of fsys_table is a
workaround but will interfere with FFS. So this should better be fixed in
the btrfs-part of grub, so that it:
a) doesn't missdetect a JFS filesystem as btrfs
b) doesn't break the detection for remaining filesystems in the array.
Hello.
Yes, I confirm that xfs, etc. file systems are not detected,
but missdetection jfs as btrfs looks rather fantastic :)
Please, try the attached patch. Report if any problems.
The patch works, but the problem with misdetected JFS filesystem still
persists. It happens if the device contained a btrfs filesystem before. I
assume that the JFS super block starts later on the device as the btrfs one do
and jfs_mkfs doesn't clean the space ahead of the JFS super block. So if a JFS
filesystem is created on a device that contained a btrfs before, btrfs_mount
still detects the beginning of the old btrfs super block and reads crap later
on.
Yup, sticky thing..
To avoid this, btrfs detection could be placed after JFS. Are there any
objections against this?
If so, we might want to put if after XFS,
which is also mistreated in such manner..
Thanks,
Edward.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
