* incomplete erase of btrfs with wipefs
@ 2012-12-23 21:11 Chris Murphy
2012-12-24 17:52 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2012-12-23 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Hi,
I'm not completely sure if this is a wipefs bug, or a btrfs(-progs) bug. The gist is that after using wipefs on a btrfs formatted partition, then reformatted as ext4, mount sees it as ext4, parted sees it as ext4, but I btrfs fi show sees it as a member device of a btrfs volume. I have filed a bug against util-linux, but perhaps this is a btrfs-progs over confidence in what it thinks is a valid volume. I have included in the bug report the first 5MB of the device.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889888
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: incomplete erase of btrfs with wipefs
2012-12-23 21:11 incomplete erase of btrfs with wipefs Chris Murphy
@ 2012-12-24 17:52 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-12-24 19:10 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Goffredo Baroncelli @ 2012-12-24 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Murphy; +Cc: linux-btrfs
Hi, Chrism
On 12/23/2012 10:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not completely sure if this is a wipefs bug, or a btrfs(-progs)
> bug. The gist is that after using wipefs on a btrfs formatted
> partition, then reformatted as ext4, mount sees it as ext4, parted
> sees it as ext4, but I btrfs fi show sees it as a member device of a
> btrfs volume. I have filed a bug against util-linux, but perhaps this
> is a btrfs-progs over confidence in what it thinks is a valid volume.
> I have included in the bug report the first 5MB of the device.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889888
I cannot reproduce this behaviour [1]. However I have to point out that
this [2][3] patch solved a problem like you reported.
Which version of btrfs-progs do you have ? It seems that F18 (beta)
already has the latest btrfs-progs suite..
BR
G.Baroncelli
[1]
ghigo@venice:~$ /sbin/mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdi1 -L test
WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using
fs created label test on /dev/sdi1
nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sectorsize 4096 size 7.45GB
Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
ghigo@venice:~$ btrfs fi show /dev/sdi1
[...]
Label: 'test' uuid: 64df10e0-7131-449d-84ec-a5babdd6199e
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 28.00KB
devid 1 size 7.45GB used 799.25MB path /dev/sdi1
Btrfs v0.19-101-g3891d2d
ghigo@venice:~$ /sbin/wipefs /dev/sdi1
offset type
----------------------------------------------------------------
0x10040 btrfs [filesystem]
LABEL: test
UUID: 64df10e0-7131-449d-84ec-a5babdd6199e
ghigo@venice:~$ /sbin/wipefs /dev/sdi1 -o 0x10040
8 bytes were erased at offset 0x10040 (btrfs)
they were: 5f 42 48 52 66 53 5f 4d
ghigo@venice:~$ btrfs fi show /dev/sdi1
Btrfs v0.19-101-g3891d2d
ghigo@venice:~$ /sbin/blkid | grep sdi1
ghigo@venice:~$ /sbin/wipefs /dev/sdi1
[2]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git;a=commitdiff;h=6eba9002956ac40db87d42fb653a0524dc568810;hp=bc130ecd0260e4ee6ffe07ae43fc90db281a4daa
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg18649.html
>
>
> Chris Murphy
>
> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: incomplete erase of btrfs with wipefs
2012-12-24 17:52 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
@ 2012-12-24 19:10 ` Chris Murphy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Murphy @ 2012-12-24 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
On Dec 24, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Chrism
>
> On 12/23/2012 10:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm not completely sure if this is a wipefs bug, or a btrfs(-progs)
>> bug. The gist is that after using wipefs on a btrfs formatted
>> partition, then reformatted as ext4, mount sees it as ext4, parted
>> sees it as ext4, but I btrfs fi show sees it as a member device of a
>> btrfs volume. I have filed a bug against util-linux, but perhaps this
>> is a btrfs-progs over confidence in what it thinks is a valid volume.
>> I have included in the bug report the first 5MB of the device.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889888
>
> I cannot reproduce this behaviour [1]. However I have to point out that
> this [2][3] patch solved a problem like you reported.
>
> Which version of btrfs-progs do you have ? It seems that F18 (beta)
> already has the latest btrfs-progs suite..
This happens with the current F18 test candidates, which have btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20121017git91d9eec-1.fc18
Chris Murphy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-24 19:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-12-23 21:11 incomplete erase of btrfs with wipefs Chris Murphy
2012-12-24 17:52 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-12-24 19:10 ` Chris Murphy
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.