Mount and tune2fs disagree

[shmuel siegel]

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 14:47, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 02:38:39PM +0200, shmuel siegel wrote:
> > Thank you. Mounting as ext3 was sufficient. I would have done this had
> > the default mount failed. It didn't dawn on me that mount could
> > legitimately mount the file system "wrong". Does some advantage accrue
> > to a fs layout that permits this "error"?
> 
> Advantage? No, I don't think so. Had you created any files on the FAT
> partition, you'd probably corrupt the ext3 one.
> 
> The problem is that the mount command had no way to know that, although
> the partition was successfully mounted as vfat, it shouldn't be.
> 
This last statement, I disagree with. FDISK recognizes the partition as
a linux partition, parted says that it is an ext3 partition, and, IIRC,
partition magic also recognizes it as an ext3 partition. So there seems
to be enough information running around to properly identify the
partition. But at least now I understand why Windows thought that it
could mount the partition but always got the capacity wrong.
The next time I get around to booting Windows, I will check out what
partition magic thinks. If it does recognize the partition as ext3, I
will enter this information into bugzilla.