Bug 468479 - Extra output seems to confuse resizing in anaconda
Summary: Extra output seems to confuse resizing in anaconda
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: anaconda
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Anaconda Maintenance Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: F10AnacondaBlocker
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-10-25 00:07 UTC by Jesse Keating
Modified: 2013-01-10 03:24 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-10-30 22:13:30 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jesse Keating 2008-10-25 00:07:57 UTC
When attempting to resize an LVM LV (shrink it down) I got this error screen.  Unfortunately it's a live install and I don't think it's logged anywhere.

Running... ['resize2fs', '-p', '/dev/VolGroup01/LogVol00', '27344M']
Resizing the filesystem on /dev/VolGroup01/LogVol00 to 7000064 (4k) blocks.
Begin pass 3 (max = 292)
Scanning inode table          ----------------------------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The filesystem on /dev/VolGroup01/LogVol00 is now 7000064 blocks long.



Anaconda thinks the resize failed.

Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2008-10-25 08:17:07 UTC
*** Bug 468478 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jeremy Katz 2008-10-26 16:43:56 UTC
The output isn't the problem -- we say it failed based on the exit status being non-zero.  I'm not seeing any cases of a successful resize returning zero from a quick look through the resize2fs code.  Eric -- any thoughts?

(Also, adjusted the error so that it will at least tell us what was returned)

Comment 3 Eric Sandeen 2008-10-27 01:50:05 UTC
After the message above, in resize's main():

        printf(_("The filesystem on %s is now %u blocks long.\n\n"),
               device_name, new_size);

the only possible return is (0), and I don't see any called functions between the two points which could lead to an exit().

So I don't get why it thinks it failed...?  I guess it'll be interesting to see the error code ...

Comment 4 Jesse Keating 2008-10-30 22:13:30 UTC
I can't duplicate this anymore :/


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