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 -- 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
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=889888I 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 -- 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
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-- 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