Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

[Felix Zielcke]

Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2008, 19:23 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 03:20 +0200 schrieb Javier Martín:
> 
> > That was it. I will post no more in this thread. Do whatever you please
> > with the patch - I'll just request some more people from the GRUB dev
> > team to review the thing, instead of the tennis match we've had here
> > (and I appreciate all matches, even the ones I lose).
> 
> I'd like to bring this topic now up again and yes I know this isn't the
> last message about it :)
> 

Maybe it helps more if I give you a link to the thread start on the
archive if you want to read through the whole story again ;) [0]
The last mails aboit this was only between Javier and me about which
flags should be ignored and which should be marked as supported.
Robert was the only one from the "official's" who commented on the code
and from his is even the last message about the topic actually [1].

I really think that it's a good idea.
For example currently there exists INCOMPAT_64BIT which only the kernel
currently supports but not the e2fsprogs.
AFAIK it's probable used for filesystems >= max ext3 size, the german
Wikipedia ext3 article says 32 TiB the english one 16 TiB

Anyway if you use such a real big filesystem in the future even
for /boot then in the beginning the /boot stuff is probable at the very
beginning of it, but with the time you probable want to make use of it.
And then maybe update once the kernel which then probable moves to an
area which needs 64bit inode support or whatever this 64bit are used
for.
Then I think it's better to refuse to install grub to it (e.g. by
failing grub-probe) then people leaving in the uncertainness that they
may not be able anymore to boot this system.

Ok probable nobody ever uses such a big filesystem for their /boot too,
but as Javier already said in the thread: There's maybe an ext5, ext6
and so on.

By the way: I suggest to rename ext2.mod to extN.mod, on IRC there was
already a guy who wondered why it says ext2 instead of ext3 which he had
and ext4 extents are now supported which will probable never backported
to ext2.

[0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-07/msg00008.html
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-07/msg00333.html