Fionn Behrens wrote: >On Mi, 2005-09-28 at 18:25 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote: > > > >>>2.6.11 refused to boot the >>>root partition, claiming that there were an inconsistency in the FS. >>> >>> >>the disk format got new parameters and old kernels cannot understand it right. >> >> > >Ah, I see. So maybe it would be a good idea if the new fs version would >put up a big fat warning to syslog when it detects a partition written >by a previous version, telling the user that he is about to break >compatibility to his older version (and that the must upgrade userland >tools, too!) > > Good idea. Vitaly, please fix it.
> > >>>Sep 28 08:44:20 rtfm kernel: WARNING: wrong pset member (11) for 42 >>>Sep 28 08:44:20 rtfm kernel: WARNING: unused space in inode 42 >>> >>> > > > >>which fsck version? >> >> > >1.0.4 > > > >>>the man page said that this would be read-only. >>> >>> >>it says: >>" --check >>the default action checks the consistency and reports, but does not >>repair any corruption that it finds. This option may be used on a >>read-only file system mount. >>" >>it does not mean 100% read-only check. >> >> > >Okay, you sound a bit like a lawyer, but: you right me wrong. > > Vitaly, fix the docs. > > >>>There was my fourth surprise: This fsck thing had LIED to me; it was not >>>read-only. >>> >>> >>why do you think --build-fs is read-only? >> >> > >Had not gone --build-fs yet. This was still about --check. > > > >>>It may have checked the fs read-only but it must have >>>treacherously flipped some "error" bit somewhere on disk >>> >>> > > > >>>Warning, mounting filesystem with fatal errors, forcing read-only mount >>>(followed by the error from above) >>> >>> >>do you see anything relevant in the syslog? >> >> > >That line was in the syslog. > > > >>>So much for --check being just a check. I grabbed a book and lost about >>>two more precious working hours running the --build-fs thing. >>> >>> > > > >>you need to clarify what reiser4progs version you are running. >>1.0.5 fixes the fs to the letest format, which is needed for 2.6.13. >>1.0.3 to the 2.6.10's one. >> >> > >1.0.4 . As I am now back on 2.6.11, I guess I should not upgrade to >1.0.5 or would that not do harm anyway? > >thanks for answering! > >kind regards, > Fionn > >
