Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

["Javier Martín" <lordhabbit@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2817 bytes --]

El mié, 06-08-2008 a las 12:36 +0200, Felix Zielcke escribió:
> Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2008, 19:23 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> > Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 03:20 +0200 schrieb Javier Martín:
> > 
> > > That was it. I will post no more in this thread. Do whatever you please
> > > with the patch - I'll just request some more people from the GRUB dev
> > > team to review the thing, instead of the tennis match we've had here
> > > (and I appreciate all matches, even the ones I lose).
> > 
> > I'd like to bring this topic now up again and yes I know this isn't the
> > last message about it :)
> > 
> 
> Maybe it helps more if I give you a link to the thread start on the
> archive if you want to read through the whole story again ;) [0]
> The last mails aboit this was only between Javier and me about which
> flags should be ignored and which should be marked as supported.
> Robert was the only one from the "official's" who commented on the code
> and from his is even the last message about the topic actually [1].
> 
> I really think that it's a good idea.
> For example currently there exists INCOMPAT_64BIT which only the kernel
> currently supports but not the e2fsprogs.
> AFAIK it's probable used for filesystems >= max ext3 size, the german
> Wikipedia ext3 article says 32 TiB the english one 16 TiB
> 
> Anyway if you use such a real big filesystem in the future even
> for /boot then in the beginning the /boot stuff is probable at the very
> beginning of it, but with the time you probable want to make use of it.
> And then maybe update once the kernel which then probable moves to an
> area which needs 64bit inode support or whatever this 64bit are used
> for.
> Then I think it's better to refuse to install grub to it (e.g. by
> failing grub-probe) then people leaving in the uncertainness that they
> may not be able anymore to boot this system.
> 
> Ok probable nobody ever uses such a big filesystem for their /boot too,
> but as Javier already said in the thread: There's maybe an ext5, ext6
> and so on.
> 
> By the way: I suggest to rename ext2.mod to extN.mod, on IRC there was
> already a guy who wondered why it says ext2 instead of ext3 which he had
> and ext4 extents are now supported which will probable never backported
> to ext2.
> 
> [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-07/msg00008.html
> [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-07/msg00333.html
> 
> 

Thanks for raising the topic again. If it serves any purpose, I'll say
that the last patch I sent ("version 5") is still valid against the
current HEAD (rev. 1798)

-Habbit

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]