From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] file system larger than lv Message-ID: <20021116025942.U17827@vestdata.no> References: <20021115115831.B11618@sistina.com> <20021115122708.GK8377@pc.ilinx> <20021115135424.A12164@sistina.com> <20021115134816.GL8377@pc.ilinx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021115134816.GL8377@pc.ilinx>; from lvm@interlinx.bc.ca on Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:48:20AM -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Nov 15 20:00:02 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > > Putting additional overloading block/filesystem layer services not ne= cessarily > > needed there into the kernel is unlikely to be accepted either IMO. >=20 > No. No. Not in the kernel. I mean the user space tools can simply > check what data is on the block device (i.e. look for a known > signature of given filesystems) and see if it can determine if it is > indeed a filesystem. First of all it's not possible to detect if the device includes a valid filesystem. You can only check for know filesystems and I don't think it would be a good idea for lvm to include a list of filesystem-signatures. Second, reducing the size of a device is just as dangerous if there is something else (say a datbase) on that device. So, if anything, I think lvreduce should always warn the user that this is a dangerous operation. --=20 Ragnar Kj=F8rstad Big Storage