On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 08:22:49PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> Just to clarify: The failing test uses -r 1, not 0:
>
> fs_ext2.c#383,extfs_mkfs(): command [mke2fs -q -F -b 1024 -L 'Test' -U
> 31ec6c69-80a1-4ed6-9642-f2b78f798bff -I 256 -r 1 -O
> has_journal,ext_attr,resize_inode,dir_index,^sparse_super2,^fast_commit,orphan_file,filetype,extent,^journal_dev,flex_bg,^meta_bg,^mmp,64bit,^inline_data,^ea_inode,^large_dir,large_file,huge_file,sparse_super,^uninit_bg,dir_nlink,extra_isize,^bigalloc,metadata_csum,^project
> /dev/loop0] failed with return status=1
Yes, that's why I proposed option (C). This would allow mke2fs -r 1
to succeed, but -r 0 would issue some kind of "this has been changed
to -E revision=0 but you almost certainly didn't mean to use -r 0".
This would not require any changes to fsarchiver, *except* in the case
where some fsarchiver user was trying to archive a file system which
should only be used on a 30-year old Linux kernel. So that's why I
was asking whether fsarchiver would care about that use case --- how
do people use fsarchiver, in practice?
This is almost certainly how I intend to resolve the debci failure.
If you care, you could change fsarchiver to use -E revision=0 in the
rare case where someone is actually trying to do an archive and
restore of a revision 0 file system.
- Ted
