[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080212.001104.172517283.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:11:04 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: chris.mason@...cle.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
btrfs-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: BTRFS partition usage...
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
> Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
> in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
> this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been
> able to find is XFS.
>
> This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
> created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk
> label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why every
> btrfs make would zero out my disk label :-/
Actually it seems this is only a problem with mkfs.btrfs, it clears
out the first 64 4K chunks of the disk for whatever reason.
The following patch cures the disk label spamming problem for me:
--- vanilla/btrfs-progs-0.12/mkfs.c 2008-02-06 08:37:45.000000000 -0800
+++ btrfs-progs-0.12/mkfs.c 2008-02-12 00:07:43.000000000 -0800
@@ -210,7 +210,8 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
exit(1);
}
memset(buf, 0, sectorsize);
- for(i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
+ lseek(fd, BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET, SEEK_SET);
+ for(i = BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET / sectorsize; i < 64; i++) {
ret = write(fd, buf, sectorsize);
if (ret != sectorsize) {
fprintf(stderr, "unable to zero fill device\n");
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists