2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Chuck Campbell]

Was the ext3 filesystem ever back ported to the 2.2 kernel series?

thanks,
-chuck

-- 

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Andrew Morton]

Chuck Campbell <campbell@accelinc.com> wrote:
>
> Was the ext3 filesystem ever back ported to the 2.2 kernel series?

It was written for 2.2, and then forward-ported.

ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/sct/ext3/v2.2/

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Chuck Campbell]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:58:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Chuck Campbell <campbell@accelinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Was the ext3 filesystem ever back ported to the 2.2 kernel series?
> 
> It was written for 2.2, and then forward-ported.
> 
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/sct/ext3/v2.2/

Interesting.  I looked at the system running 2.2, and there are no ext3
options in the running config file.  It may have been later than 2.2.22...

All of this made me remember that an ext3 filesystem can be mounted as ext2, 
so I got done what I really needed anyway.

thanks for the reply,
-chuck

-- 

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Andre Tomt]

Chuck Campbell wrote:
>>It was written for 2.2, and then forward-ported.
          ^^^^^^
> Interesting.  I looked at the system running 2.2, and there are no ext3
> options in the running config file.  It may have been later than 2.2.22...

"written for" is not the same as "included in" ;-)

> All of this made me remember that an ext3 filesystem can be mounted as ext2, 
> so I got done what I really needed anyway.

Good :-)

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Andrew Morton]

Chuck Campbell <campbell@accelinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:58:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Chuck Campbell <campbell@accelinc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Was the ext3 filesystem ever back ported to the 2.2 kernel series?
> > 
> > It was written for 2.2, and then forward-ported.
> > 
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/sct/ext3/v2.2/
> 
> Interesting.  I looked at the system running 2.2, and there are no ext3
> options in the running config file.  It may have been later than 2.2.22...

ext3 was originally written for 2.2 but was never merged into the
mainstream kernel.   That happened in 2.4.15.

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:41:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ext3 was originally written for 2.2 but was never merged into the
> mainstream kernel.   That happened in 2.4.15.

There were also some bug fixes that I'm pretty sure were never
backported into the 2.2 tree....

						- Ted

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Chuck Campbell]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 08:27:17PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> There were also some bug fixes that I'm pretty sure were never
> backported into the 2.2 tree....

I may be being stung by this as we speak.

I mounted this ext3 filesystem as ext2 on my 2.2.16 kernel system. I made 
some changes to some files (simple edits), and now when I reboot the box in
2.2.16, I get the following:

mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hdb2,
       or too many mounted filesystems

in /var/log/messages I see:
EXT2-fs warning: mounting unchecked fs, running e2fsck is recommended
EXT2-fs: ide0(3,66): couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features.


I'm reticent to run any e2fsck as old as 2.2.16 kernel version against
this filesystem, in fear of damaging it.  Is this a sane thing to consider,
or do I need to put this disk back into a more recent box and try to mount it/
fsck it there?

Alternatively, where might I dig up an ext3 patch against linux-2.2.x, so
I can build a kernel that will support this?  I assume I would need file
utilities that support it as well?

thanks,
-chuck


-- 

Re: 2.2 kernel and ext3 filesystems

[Andreas Dilger]

On Jan 28, 2004  14:58 -0600, Chuck Campbell wrote:
> I mounted this ext3 filesystem as ext2 on my 2.2.16 kernel system. I made 
> some changes to some files (simple edits), and now when I reboot the box in
> 2.2.16, I get the following:
> 
> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hdb2,
>        or too many mounted filesystems
> 
> in /var/log/messages I see:
> EXT2-fs warning: mounting unchecked fs, running e2fsck is recommended
> EXT2-fs: ide0(3,66): couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features.
> 
> 
> I'm reticent to run any e2fsck as old as 2.2.16 kernel version against
> this filesystem, in fear of damaging it.  Is this a sane thing to consider,
> or do I need to put this disk back into a more recent box and try to mount it/
> fsck it there?

e2fsck is not tied to any particular kernel version.  You should be able to
see the features that ext2 is complaining about with "dumpe2fs -h /dev/hdb2"
in the "Features" line.  I'm guessing it's "needs_recovery" that ext2 doesn't
like.  That means that you didn't unmount the ext3 filesystem cleanly and
now ext2 can't mount it.  Running any non-prehistoric version of e2fsck
will fix it, but as always newer versions are better.  Once e2fsck has
cleaned up the journal, it can be mounted by older kernels as ext2 again.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/