On Wednesday 28 September 2005 19:28, 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!) > > > > 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. > > > > 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.
ok, the flag that fs contains errors is indeed cleared only with --check with all reiser4progs untill 1.0.5, the later is able to do it with any options. Thus another --check run would clear the flag. However 'the error from above' that is 'WARNING: wrong pset member (11) for 42' is possible with the old kernel only. remember that reiser4progs-1.0.4 supports both formats, in other words having the format updated to the new one, you are able to use new kernel only. If you want to move back to 2.6.10, you have to build-fs with 1.0.3 version or reiser4progs. > > > 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? 1.0.5 is 1.0.4 + bugfixes. > thanks for answering! > > kind regards, > Fionn -- Vitaly
