RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 2026002 - xfsprogs: add example configuration files for compatibility with older RHEL versions
Summary: xfsprogs: add example configuration files for compatibility with older RHEL v...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
Classification: Red Hat
Component: xfsprogs
Version: 9.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Pavel Reichl
QA Contact: Zorro Lang
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-11-23 15:48 UTC by Eric Sandeen
Modified: 2023-09-15 01:50 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: xfsprogs-5.12.0-5.el9
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-05-17 16:01:28 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
pm-rhel: mirror+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHELPLAN-103683 0 None None None 2021-11-23 15:49:25 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2022:4022 0 None None None 2022-05-17 16:01:31 UTC

Description Eric Sandeen 2021-11-23 15:48:32 UTC
Now that xfsprogs supports mkfs config files, we can provide example configuration files to simplify creation of filesystems that are compatible with older releases.

The supported feature set may have changed slightly over the course of the RHEL7 and/or RHEL8 release, so it may be best to target RHEL8.0 and RHEL7.0, and not over-complicate it with minor versions.

Pavel and I had discussed this, and where the config file should go. Pavel had suggested it in a documentation / example sort of directory, and after thinking about it more, I think that might be the best plan.

A question for QE - if we ship mkfs.xfs config files for backwards compatibility, will that add to your testing burden, or do you think we can simply provide them as examples, without a need for significant additional testing?

Comment 1 Zorro Lang 2021-11-24 16:30:26 UTC
(In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #0)
> Now that xfsprogs supports mkfs config files, we can provide example
> configuration files to simplify creation of filesystems that are compatible
> with older releases.
> 
> The supported feature set may have changed slightly over the course of the
> RHEL7 and/or RHEL8 release, so it may be best to target RHEL8.0 and RHEL7.0,
> and not over-complicate it with minor versions.
> 
> Pavel and I had discussed this, and where the config file should go. Pavel
> had suggested it in a documentation / example sort of directory, and after
> thinking about it more, I think that might be the best plan.
> 
> A question for QE - if we ship mkfs.xfs config files for backwards
> compatibility, will that add to your testing burden, or do you think we can
> simply provide them as examples, without a need for significant additional
> testing?

Hi Eric,

What do you mean "ship mkfs.xfs config files"? As I known we didn't used mkfs configuration_file to make bigtime and inobtcount enabled by default. It's hardcode in xfs_mkfs.c now as:

.sb_feat = {
...
    .inobtcnt = true,
    .bigtime = true,
}

Do you mean you'd like to add some configuration files to xfsprogs, include a default one will be imported by mkfs.xfs, and others are optional used by users?

Thanks,
Zorro

Comment 2 Pavel Reichl 2021-11-24 16:51:24 UTC
Hi Zorro,

it's my understanding that there would be no default config - nothing changes there.

But there would be an "example" config file included in xfsprogs rpm which would make mkfs.xfs create an XFS FS, while running on rhel-9, that could be mounted on rhel-8 or rhel-7. Is this helpful?

Comment 3 Zorro Lang 2021-11-24 17:06:44 UTC
(In reply to Pavel Reichl from comment #2)
> Hi Zorro,
> 
> it's my understanding that there would be no default config - nothing
> changes there.
> 
> But there would be an "example" config file included in xfsprogs rpm which
> would make mkfs.xfs create an XFS FS, while running on rhel-9, that could be
> mounted on rhel-8 or rhel-7. Is this helpful?

OK, so it's something likes we add a file xfsprogs/doc/rhel8-xfs.confile, then recommand using "mkfs.xfs -c option=/path/to/doc/rhel8-xfs.confile" to make a rhel8 compatible xfs on rhel9, am I right?

Thanks,
Zorro

Comment 4 Pavel Reichl 2021-11-24 19:32:36 UTC
Yes, exactly!

Comment 5 Zorro Lang 2021-11-25 07:26:12 UTC
(In reply to Pavel Reichl from comment #4)
> Yes, exactly!

OK, if so, we'll add some test to make sure the recommanded config file(for old rhel version) works.

Thanks,
Zorro

Comment 15 Pavel Reichl 2022-01-07 14:28:51 UTC
Hi Eric,

I just noticed that in your 1st comment your also mention RHEL-7 compatible config file, however so far I only focused on RHEL-8...should I investigate and potentially reopen this BZ to add example configuration file for RHEL-7 as well?

Thanks!

Comment 17 errata-xmlrpc 2022-05-17 16:01:28 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (new packages: xfsprogs), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:4022

Comment 18 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-15 01:50:12 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 365 days


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.