From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: mkfs.ext4 vs. e2fsck discard oddities Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:38:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20120301143834.GA30578@thunk.org> References: <4F4D1020.5060204@redhat.com> <34CA4C93-194F-45F3-9A94-E181A7DFEBCE@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Sandeen , ext4 development To: Lukas Czerner Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:40050 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750734Ab2CAOih (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:38:37 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 08:12:44AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > actually mke2fs does discard block by default. It has been like that > since the beginning. Back then we only had '-K' argument to 'keep' > blocks and do not attempt to discard. Nowadays user can do '-E > nodiscard', but it is users choice. Ah, you're right. The defaults had changed back and forth a couple of times over time and I had lost track of how things had been settled for mke2fs (which is different from e2fsck). At least at one point it was _not_ the default, and in fact the man page was out of sync with the behavior of the mke2fs. The point remains the same, though, if the file system was created with mke2fs -E nodiscard, how do you undo that decision if there's no way to force the discard of BLOCK_UNINIT blocks? - Ted