Bug 450764
| Summary: | RFE: GFS2: mkfs.gfs2 should have an optional fs size parm | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Robert Peterson <rpeterso> | ||||||
| Component: | gfs2-utils | Assignee: | Robert Peterson <rpeterso> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Cluster QE <mspqa-list> | ||||||
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||||
| Version: | 5.3 | CC: | adas, bmarzins, edamato, esandeen, swhiteho | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-01-20 20:52:25 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Robert Peterson
2008-06-10 20:49:17 UTC
Created attachment 308968 [details] Proposed patch This is the RHEL5 version of the patch. The upstream (master) patch should not be too different, and I'll send that upstream when I find the time. This patch became a higher priority because I could not recreate the required file system conditions with MD raid any other way for bug #448866, which is what I've been focusing on lately. Also, I found some formatting inconsistencies with the mkfs.gfs2 man page that I fixed, as long as I was editing the file. It turns out that most of the major file systems have alternate block count options in their respective mkfs commands. I sampled several and looked at how the block count was specified on the command line: mkfs.ext3 [ blocks-count ] mkfs.xfs -d size=X (e.g. 80G) mkfs.ntfs [ number-of-sectors ] mkfs.vfat [ block-count ] mkfs.cramfs (no option available) mkfs.reiserfs [block-count] So I went with the majority and made an optional last parameter to specify the block count. This patch was tested on system exxon-01 and pushed to the master and STABLE2 branches in the upstream git tree. Requesting ACK flags for inclusion into 5.3. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. After fixing a minor white space issue, I pushed this to the RHEL5 branch of the cluster git tree. Someone pointed out to me that resize2fs also has an optional file system size parameter, so we may want to do gfs2_grow as well at some point. I consider that a separate issue, and it should have its own bz record. For now, I'm marking this as modified. + if (sdp->orig_fssize > sdp->device.length)
+ die("specified block count is smaller than the"
+ "actual device.\n");
Isn't that text backwards? (s/b larger?)
Thanks,
-Eric
Oh and just a minor nit: [root@east-10 ~]# mkfs.gfs2 -p lock_nolock /dev/sdb 268435456 ... Device Size 1024.00 GB (268435456 blocks) Filesystem Size: 1024.00 GB (268435454 blocks) the device size is actually 1.4T ... *shrug* :) Created attachment 313847 [details]
Addendum patch
This patch fixes the problems Eric Sandeen pointed out.
The addendum patch was committed to master, STABLE2 and RHEL5 branches of git. Verified w/ gfs2-utils-0.1.53-1.el5 An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0087.html |