On Jan 16, 2024, at 6:29 AM, Brian J. Murrell <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:06 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> >> Huh. Do you remember the exact command that was used to format this >> filesystem? > > I do not. It was created quite a while ago. > >> "mke2fs" still formats ext2 filesystems unless you pass >> -T ext4 or call its cousin mkfs.ext4. > > I wonder if that's what I did perhaps. > > >> Nope. ext4 is really just ext2 plus a bunch of new features >> (journal, >> extents, uninit_bg, dir_index). > > Yes, that's completely understood. I would have thought it an > interesting "safety" measure to flag that when a user requests an ext4 > mount and the file system is actually only ext2 that a refusal to mount > would indicate to the user that their ext* file system does not have > the required features to be called ext4. At this stage in the game, it _probably_ makes sense that bare "mke2fs" default to ext4 instead of ext2 to avoid this issue? Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
