On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:14:32AM -0400, TR Reardon wrote: > 1) tune2fs hiccups when presented with journal device fs. Should it instead > at least report "this is a journal device" rather than "invalid super block"? Yes. e2fsck/debugfs seem to issue the 'unsupported features' complaint but without the 'invalid superblock' wording. > 2) no way to create journal_dev with metadata_csum. This would provide > checksum for the fs superblock. Not sure how useful this is since most of the SB is irrelevant here. But I don't see any reason why we shouldn't let users turn it on. > 3) dumpe2fs should still display journal flags for journal_dev; currently it > fails to display journal flags. Ick. Yes, that should work. > 4) s_jnl_blocks in the superblock should be zeroed when removing a journal > (ie ^has_journal) or when setting the journal to journal_dev. Currently, the > legacy (now dead) block list is maintained. I'd argue that will invite > misuse. Seems like a reasonable precaution. Now, does anyone know why ext4 reports a df size of 64ZB when I create an external journal FS? :) --D -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
