![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 03:11:02AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > As I said in my previous mail, You should specify -F option to > > create ext2/3 which has more than 2**31-1 blocks. > > It is because of the compatibility. > > Oh, using -F for this is highly dangerous. That would allow mke2fs to > run on e.g. a mounted filesystem or something. Instead use an option > like "-E 16tb" or something. Agreed that we shouldn't use -F, but what's the compatibility reason? Supporting 2**31-1 blocks required bugfixes in the kernel and in e2fsprogs, yes, but if it's not a filesystem format change, but rather a "kernel had bugs which have now been fixed" statement, that's not the sort of thing where I'd think forcing the system administrator to add a magic command-line flag would be necessary or desirable. I could see printing a warning message saying that older kernels might have problems with this, and I could also imagine including with the kernel patch enabling some sort of flag that could be queried, perhaps via /sys/fs/ext3/32bit-nr-blocks so that if it isn't present, mke2fs could give a more emphatic warning that the current kernel wouldn't be able to deal with filesystems being created. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-18 12:29 [W:0.903 / U:0.200 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||