From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kai Krakow Subject: Re: make-bcache bug? Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 22:00:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20170514220055.2d06210e@jupiter.sol.kaishome.de> References: <20170514175840.s3l6p4zjxnf2brm6@merlins.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [195.159.176.226] ([195.159.176.226]:51056 "EHLO blaine.gmane.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756812AbdENUBL (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 May 2017 16:01:11 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9zhO-0003W2-QM for linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 22:01:02 +0200 Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org To: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org Am Sun, 14 May 2017 10:58:40 -0700 schrieb Marc MERLIN : > bcache-tools (1.0.8-2+b1) > > gargamel:~# make-bcache -C /dev/sde2 > Already a bcache device on /dev/sde2, overwrite with --wipe-bcache > gargamel:~# make-bcache --wipe-bcache -C /dev/sde2 > Device /dev/sde2 already has a non-bcache superblock, remove it using > wipefs and wipefs -a > > /dev/sde2 is an old bcache I'm reformatting. > The first message is correct > The 2nd one is not "/dev/sde2 already has a non-bcache superblock" > > Clearly it can't have a bcache and not a bcache superblock, right? I don't think that each filesystem puts their superblocks in the same position. Plus, there are usually backup superblocks across the area. So you may well see both warnings and both are correct. Use wipefs, there seems to be an orphan superblock. -- Regards, Kai Replies to list-only preferred.