From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] system: Add btrfs file system support. Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:50:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20161130183635.6513-1-david@craven.ch> <20161130183635.6513-2-david@craven.ch> <87zikfsbk3.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33961) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cClPy-00051Y-98 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:50:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cClPv-00059q-5y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:50:14 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::241]:34033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cClPu-000589-U6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:50:11 -0500 Received: by mail-qt0-x241.google.com with SMTP id l20so26946298qta.1 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87zikfsbk3.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel I looked at your improvement suggestion. One issue I'm thinking about: How to handle the return codes, since the fsck.vfat returns slightly different error codes than fsck.ext. For example fsck.vfat error code 2 is a usage error, which would cause an infinite reboot cycle if the passed device is misspelled or something. The message corrected errors; rebooting could cause people quite some frustration I can imagine, when the problem is something that is likely a trivial typo or something. Then there is the label and uuid detection logic for every file-system that needs to be implemented. I'm wondering if it can be refactored, a quick late night and untested implementation for btrfs suggests that there is a lot of code repetition involved, I guess the same will be true for vfat. I'll have to check if there are any tests for this anywhere or write some before I mess with this "core piece" of guix. Ludo: Is there any way we can speed up the installer system tests? :)