Don't do this please, it's very useful feature actually. Try to embrace and extend but not to extinguish

No Chromebook for me without Ext support.

Looks like google is trolling linux users again.. Our usage is too low.
Bad move google!

People commenting with ad hominems and product bashing: This is not how you win sympathy or convince people. Personal attacks only make people instinctively disagree with you, no matter what you say.

Please make proper arguments and carry a logical discussion as adults rather than resort to insults. If you can't intelligently make an argument for your cause, simply Star the issue to mark that you care about this feature. Maybe then the dev team will at least reach some sort of compromise, whatever that might be.

I understand that maintaining features is a burden, but I don't think that dropping support for ext2/3/4 from Files.app is sane.
There should be more to deciding whether to keep a feature than usage stats. 

I rarely need to use factory reset, but I'm glad it's here. I don't usually need to plug an external screen to my laptop, but this feature is vital to some people and sometime I'm glad I have it too.

This is extremely stupid move. Why on earth would you want to disable filesystem support? 

If all developers just dropped features because they couldn't figure out how to implement them, we'd have a very stagnant development scene and I don't imagine that we'd even have a ChromeOS to even discuss. Generally speaking, without curiosity and the drive to overcome obstacles, we would not have gotten very far at all. In principle, dropping support for ext2/3/4 is lazy and quite irritating for developers working with ChromeOS and Linux.

Are you kidding? I'll understand it normally if you remove patented filesystem support, but what is wrong with open and mature ext2/3/4?

Users do not need another f**king Windows (or OS X) with reduced functionality.
May be you also want to remove USB drivers or other drivers?

You use GNU/Linux and it is flexible out the box. So please do not reduce flexibility without serious reasons.

Just another reason I'm GLAD I stripped my Acer C7 of ChromeOS and put a more true Linux OS on it. A Linux based OS not supporting ext3/4? Absurd 

I think you are confusing frequency with importance.
While usage might be low in numbers, this feature is essential to the power users, the creators that make this platform worth using in the first place.

It's like abolishing brain surgery because not a lot people study it.

I'm all for removing clutter. It's what makes Apple products so good. But this feature only (possibly) burdens the developer, but empowers the user.

And talking about this burden. As far as I understand, the Linux kernel pretty much abstracts away the concrete file system. I'm also under the impression that the Downloads folder resides on an ext4 file system.

Therefore I assume that any possible savings are negligible, but I'm willing to change my mind on this if you provide more examples of issues that are made difficult by supporting ext.

I was here doing this thing.

Also, I don't have a Chromebook and not planning to buy one after this silly choice. No Ext2/3/4 ... lol!

I'm just another one using ext* on all my external drives and USB sticks exactly because that's what all the computers I use support. If ChromeOS can't it would be a severe limitation.

So you are discontinuing support for ext filesystems. I was considering getting a chromebook but because my main system runs Linux, that is now not an option. I'll probably recommend them for Windows users I support as a technician, but for me, chrome OS has become a non issue, and no longer worth my time.

I tend to use ext2 for small flash drives and ext4 for larger drives. I wonder now what I'd need to use if I'd ever need a partition to work on a ChromeOS system. The list on the support page only shows a few legacy filesystems mixed with storage media.

Maybe I do not understand this report correctly? Is there (still) a way to mount partitions from external drives on ChromeOS?

Wow, this is a really odd move.

From comment #21 "Complexity adds maintenance cost, QA cost, slows down development, and adds surface of security exploits (as mentioned in #12). We should add a feature only if its benefit clearly outweighs its cost"

It would help if someone were to enunciate a clear estimate of the benefits and costs, instead of mouthing generalities.

I use Linux on my desktop and laptop. All of my external drives have ext4 file system. Please don't disable it.

Thanks

My employer is asking me how to remove chromeos entirely now and install a proper linux distro (easy enough, unless you remove that ability too in the future).  We will have to cease recommending these devices to our clients and coworkers if this goes through as they all use Linux systems and ext3/4 media.  Fat32 simply can not maintain correct file permissions or attrubutes, let alone volume sizes in common use these days - it's also dangerous with no journalling - the worst FS to use for removeable media.

Please, please, please reconsider this myopic decision.

Do NOT do this!

Any project that has people with authority to break backwards compatibility comes across as obnoxious and eventually withers.

Very disappointed with this move. All my external storage is ext4 as well. 

You are causing ma major pain to a good chunk of vocal users because of a fringe feature (renaming the volume label) can't made working easily.

Just report it is unsupported and be done with it. 

A crazy move on multiple levels. Hope common sense prevails!

I'm also a linux user, so all my drives are formatted ext4. I'm surprised at the Chromium team for choosing to remove support for filesystems that are so widly used.

As another Linux user, I will also voice my objection to this - it is most certainly not "unnecessary". The decision to remove support for ext* will be a major inconvenience for both the advanced user and Linux users in general.

This is nonsense. The original issue doesn't make any sense either. Every OS out there has a similar behavior: "pop up a bunch of file manager windows, and display a notification complaining about the partition table".

Don't do this. This is going back to the stone age forcing proprietary formats...x

+1 please don't drop support for Linux FSes, or else I'm not using ChromeOS. Moreover I will most likely have formed a negative enough opinion to persuade others not to use it.

Please do not remove support for a partition that makes life even more difficult for developers and power users than it already is. 

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hilary Clinton

"[You] cannot take something away from a peoples without inciting resistance" - Unknown

Count me among the dissenters.

It's disappointing to hear that support for EXT fs will be dropped.  I guess, like Google Reader and other projects, it doesn't really matter how large the user base is that depends on it...  "It's getting in the way, so we should forsake at."  Typical Google mentality now-a-days. Time to switch back to Apple, I guess. At least I can install additional FS support.

FWIW, I could live without EXTfs if Chromebook supported the encryption standard EncFS - I would put up no fight to encrypt external storage devices since much of my data is private anyway.

Yup, this change means ChromeOS is no longer viable for me either.

I think the testing is largely done by upstream and all the users that rely on EXT4 as their default filesystem.  I can see you removing a non-standard filesystem but this is a standard one.  To expand disk space I am using a SD card with ext4 and have all my files on it.  I really don't want to use FAT or NTFS since they are much more buggy and limited than EXT4.  If you are going to remove something at least have an option that is technically superior.  How is this not a downgrade?  NTFS is a decent filesystem but the Linux implementation is a hack and FAT is so old and feature limited.  No Linux distribution that I know of trusts these filesystems to make them the default.  Please reconsider removing high quality code that is pre-tested by the harshest environments and big data centers.  

Google once again demonstrates that gimmicky hiring procedures and free catered lunches don't ensure you actually get intelligent people to work for you. This is cluelessness to the extreme.

Would this affect the mounting of USB flash drives on EXT4?

As a college student that uses Linux for school, I have many Ext4 flash drives with my school projects on it.  I sense a disturbance in the force.

i've been looking for an excuse to install debian on my chromebook.  this is it.

Fewer than 1% of users author Chrome Apps.  Therefore, the ability to write apps should be removed.  

That's the logic being applied here. App authors are a very small minority, but an absolutely critical part of the ecosystem.   It just so happens that it's largely the same small group of users who would be alienated by this proposed change.

IT administrators and other tech-saavy individuals are also a very small fraction of users, so you shouldn't worry about alienating them, either. They make up only perhaps 1% of users.  Sure, they may buy Chromebooks by the case, but there are few of them.

To be clear kids, you can still use mount in the shell....so this does not affect the ability to use crouton and I am expect the chromeos team are not going to go out of their way to kill mount...

I would suggest looking at  issue 422764  for a way forward in solving this problem.

Hey guys let's keep things polite in here. Getting angry at the devs isn't going to make them bring it back. 

That being said, ext4 support was really useful when accessing external drives. I hope there can be some implementation of ext via that API 

@ #51 Victor Zamanian

"People commenting with ad hominems and product bashing: This is not how you win sympathy or convince people. Personal attacks only make people instinctively disagree with you, no matter what you say.

Please make proper arguments and carry a logical discussion as adults rather than resort to insults. If you can't intelligently make an argument for your cause, simply Star the issue to mark that you care about this feature. Maybe then the dev team will at least reach some sort of compromise, whatever that might be."

Victor, when the Chrome OS team presents a logical, intellectual, detailed reason for removing the EXTFS support they may receive a similar response to why they should not. When all the info presented in this thread seems to point to a we-just-don't-want-to-do-the-work reason, or a strawman argument for security for dropping support then expect emotional responses.

I don't own a Chromebook and honestly don't see much use for one myself. However, I also don't see a valid reason anywhere in this thread for dropping support for a native filesystem over a technically inferior one like FAT-32 or NTFS on Linux. This move endangers the product's future success by turning away competent, experienced software developers that make products that enable ChromeOS to continue to exist (no apps, means no more OS...just ask Be, Inc.). It is the quintessential example of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

If this decision goes forward then ChromeOS is surely destined for the dust bin as there won't be a developer community to support software to run on it. Good luck and may history mark the names of the decision makers that killed an operating system.

Hi, any answer on #34 ? 
Also using ext/4 and did not read a valid reason for dropping its support. Yes maintain is hard, but its what we do. Maintenance empowers platforms.
Regular users won't comment here of course. But I know some that use ext/4 without knowing it. Schools ? Yes. Medical doctors ? Yes. 

Of course one can imagine that cloud storage is a/the goal.

This decision is extremely foolish. There are numerous users who are picking ChromeOS systems as an extension for their current Linux desktops and servers. ChromeOS devices are fantastically priced, but with user-hostile decisions like this, they are rapidly loosing their appeal.

I use Linux almost exclusively, and as such, all my external drives are ext*. I've been looking at a getting a Chromebox as an alternate machine for home use, but not any more.

Seems like a shame. I don't suppose we [linux users] are numerous enough to be worth maintaining features for.

You forget about your roots.

A Linux-based OS drops Linux Standard Filesystems?

Sorry, I don't understand!

I have to add my voice, if it means anything to anyone, to the disagree column.

I really don't mind a dumbed-down linux (I've actually created my own stripped 
down 'kiosk' type linux system -- basically not much more than a kernel, X, and 
a web broswer (firefox) on an sd card, many years ago; its just not that hard).

I think ChromeOS is great for the casual/web only use case.  Device prices are 
very good, specs (A15, TK1, battery life) are a phenomenal value, and I recognize 
these "doing good items".  The filesystem thing might even be a non-issue for 
storage portability; moving files from one system to another.

The real problems here (and with Android), as I see them, are pretty basic, and 
actually quite fundamentally simple if one thinks about them from the non-Google
point of view; one leads directly to the other:

a) First, I *own* this thing (actually 2 Chromebooks, 6 Android tablets)... 
if Google retained ownership, things would be different, but they don't... same 
issue with Android devices, that have now lead me to Cyanogen Mod on my 2012 
Nexus7; they are doing a much better development job than Google on that front, 
but I digress...

b) ChromeOS devices have *no* *official* *recourse* to eliminate Google's flavor 
of linux that is ChromeOS, in favor of a full linux distro, on a device I *OWN*; 
a basic install can be quite small; a few extra things will easily fit into the 
available flash.  

So make the conversion process as scary as you want, and disavow all warranty 
support, but let it happen, and support the transition, or you *will* end up with 
yet another Cyanogen Mod type scenario... remember guys, its Open Source, the GPL
applies, and recent news seems to indicate you have recognized a problem brewing 
with Cyanogen.  Address it head on and do the right thing.

This path is not a problem for those who want it this way, and this class of 
customer should be recognized, and supported in this (supremely basic) way!

This is the spirit of Open Source I think some have hinted at.  And even to 
paraphrase BSD: recognize the shoulders you stand upon and respect the community!

So I say: go ahead and do whatever you want for the official ChromeOS, as long
as you make installing real linux distros part of the basic Chromebook spec.
and *officially* *support* the transition; it would 'cost' very little.

Problem (or many problems) solved.

p.s. I find the justification for this change very odd: Google is rolling in 
cash... why is the 'cost cutting' needed?

So, on a linux box, we can't have a linux FS?

Seriously?

I use my Samsung Chromebooks for armhf Linux development on the move (as well as being nice machines). Removal of ext2/3/4 support will basically turn them into bricks as far as I am concerned.

Please, please, please do not remove this feature.

Remind me to never use ChromeOS :)

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Without Linux and the open source community ChromeOS would not even exist.

Shame on you Google. You are slowly joining Microsoft and Oracle in just being an open source vulture and not an actual contributor.

I usually refrain from "me too" comments, but I guess in this case it's necessary. Basically all my USB sticks are ext formatted. Please reconsider that decision.

We should reconsider this decision until we have a long term solution for supporting ext* in place (e.g., that proposed by agoode@ in  issue 422764 ). The intermediate compromise of disabling rename or returning an error on rename seems perfectly reasonable, at the very least. If there's a security concern here, please link to it.

Please keep support for ext 2/3/4 on external drives. 

 

I don't like bashing but in this case this is a very short sighted move. My entire household runs Linux and Android, as do the many other households that I've converted over time (much of my family and friends) to Linux. Recently I've started recommending chrome books. So now if they reformat a USB device on their linux desktop and take it to their new chrome book they are going to have to open a command line to mount it? Are you insane google? How does this benefit *my* end users? I guess I can no longer recommend chromeos devices. It's bad enough that you did this to me once with Android (btw: getting files to/from my Android table to my Linux desktop is a royal PITA. Most of the time it doesn't work properly and I need to transfer via dropbox.) You are slowly strangling Linux users, (and still not google drive client for Linux either.) Thanks Google. New Google motto.... "Do no Evil, when it's convenient." As a linux user and promoter, I use to believe in you but I'm quickly losing faith.

I have to agree with @58. It makes no sense to remove this feature when default partitions of the OS use the exact same file system. To remove a file system that offers users, and developers, whom you depend on to expand Chrome's feature set seems like a mistake. I understand as a Linux user that I am in the minority, but it's simply hypocritical of the Chrome team to lean on Linux as their roots and remove something as fundamental as EXT support. If Google actively uses the structure on both Chrome and Android partitions, I can't find a reasonable reason for this drop and dismissing it as trivial seems short sighted when many would find the linked feature in post #1 just as trivial.

Short sighted move. -1 from me.

Another dissapointed ext user here. You could at least offer an alternative, say btrfs or xfs. I'm definitely not reformatting my stuff with fat or ntfs.

#101 I am very glad to hear that :)

All of my external HDDs are EXT3/4 except the one attached to my lone Win7 machine. Removing support for EXT FS in ChromeOS is baffling and irritating to the nth degree.

Use FAT32 or NTFS instead? Really?!

#101 thank you. You have the right attitude.

This is really outrageus. Base your OS on Linux, and then insult and spit in the faces of all Linux users (saying they "don't matter", and the features that interest them are "unnecessary").

I've been recommending Chrome OS to non-technical friends until now. No more. From now on I'm an anti-ChromeOS advocate.

#101 This is the reasonable proposal here. Like many of the comments here, I use Linux and ChromeOS. Therefore all of my externals are formatted to ext*. The reasons for removing support of ext* file systems seem weak (issue with renaming externals) and hypothetical (non-specific security issue). It simply doesn't make a lot of sense to remove a useful feature (even if the use is low) for trivial reasons. For my own use case, removing ext* file system support limits my ability to use ChromeOS as a user and developer. Please reconsider this.

I am a software architect. My entire family runs Android and Linux. All our external media are ext4. Are you starting to see a pattern?

This reminds me of solid modeling software I supported years ago: one command (fillet) worked in 95% of the use cases, but if you were in the 5%, you were screwed.  The work around was impossible or insanely expensive.  The power users couldn't get their job done, and we lost their support.  That had a much larger impact than just their 2% share of the user base because the other designers looked up to them.  Losing that 2% meant losing the confidence of perhaps 50% of the entire user base.

Support for Ext4 on USB devices is standard and reliable across every Linux distro with which I am familiar.  I can't see this support being substantially positive maintenance cost delta, especially as the main fs remains ext4 and removing USB ext support from upsteam sources may offset any gains.

Please stop the dumbification and retain the power users you need the most.  I really want to buy and specify Chromebooks.

What vulnerabilities are caused by ext2/3/4 external drives on ChromeOS that aren't on Linux?

This would be the most dumbest and atrocious decision ever. I will neither buy not support ChromeOS.

No. 

Just. No. 

I just blasted Sony for not including EXT(x) support on Playstation Devices and relying on deprecated FAT/NTFS filesystems from Microsoft. Google employed engineers should know better than to try this kind of stunt. 

Thanks all for your feedback (particularly the civil feedback). It's pretty clear how many of you feel about this issue, and there are those in the project that feel similarly. While I can't make any promises, I'm confident we can improve the situation.

In the interest of focusing the discussion on a concrete solution, I'm going to temporarily restrict additional comments. Please star the issue to follow progress and express your interest. Contrary to popular belief, we do care about users and your feedback can make a difference.

It's not often that a Chromium OS bug gets its own article on Slashdot.  Congratulations :)

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/10/12/1321207/

This is a major mistake, and we should NOT be doing this. We have taken great pains to make Chromebooks useful for hackers and developers from day one, not just the "average" user (if there is such a thing). For the last five years, we have worked to make Chrome OS the first and best choice for *all* users. Just want to surf the web without viruses? Maintain a blog? Manage your business? Build a home media center? Control a robot? A Chrome OS device should be the first thing you think of.

Although it's sometimes required significant extra effort to support those last two examples, I believe it's been very much worth it, and based on the increasing public outcry, so do our users. The people who feel most passionately about that sort of thing are the same people who advise the rest. They are us. And we decided way back then that we'd build things *we* wanted to use too, even if it was harder. This may be one of those extra effort cases.

Yes, I agree that the original problem (260961) was annoying. But that has been dealt with, and not displaying the filesystems that are the *MOST* used by both internal and external developers is not in keeping with our design philosophy.

Further, this doesn't appear to be a data-driven decision. I'm not very experienced with the feedback/ tool, but I can't find any complaints about extra or linux or confusing filesystems on USB sticks. I do see a number of complaints about not being able to do some operations on ext-formatted devices, though. I'd really like to see some data to back up this feature-removal request.

Thanks for all of your feedback on this bug. We’ve heard you loud and clear.

We plan to re-enable ext2/3/4 support in Files.app immediately. It will come back, just like it was before, and we’re working to get it into the next stable channel release.

Please star this bug to get the latest updates. We’ll post everything here.

Project: chromiumos/third_party/autotest
Branch : master
Author : Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Commit : 4fdcff4414f3625bbc1ee7bd3a88446fc45196f0

Code-Review  0 : Ben Chan
Code-Review  +2: mukesh agrawal
Commit-Queue 0 : mukesh agrawal
Commit-Queue +2: Ben Chan
Verified     0 : mukesh agrawal
Verified     +1: Ben Chan
Commit Queue   : Chumped
Change-Id      : I09d22b7d3ef9bf7b3b589c0e3d6939918c102f4b
Reviewed-at    : https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223383

Revert "Update platform_CrosDisksFilesystem ext2/3/4 tests."

This reverts commit dc6e31a09ca866b75bd06caa6323828b6f6ec5f0.

CL:223391 re-enables the support of ext2/3/4 filesystem in cros-disks.
This CL updates platform_CrosDisksFilesystem ext2/3/4 tests to verify
that mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems via cros-disks succeeds again.

BUG= chromium:315401 
CQ-DEPEND=CL:223391
TEST=Run platform_CrosDisksFilesystem tests.

client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext2_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext3_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext4_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem.py

Project: chromiumos/platform2
Branch : master
Author : Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Commit : 996d5e352b195b1779e850b66ff4f49673008a05

Code-Review  0 : Ben Chan
Code-Review  +2: mukesh agrawal
Commit-Queue 0 : mukesh agrawal
Commit-Queue +2: Ben Chan
Verified     0 : mukesh agrawal
Verified     +1: Ben Chan
Commit Queue   : Chumped
Change-Id      : Iec79516705ec9c74b0118ae65f48ead4c7004fd0
Reviewed-at    : https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223391

cros-disks: Re-enable support for ext2/3/4 filesystem.

This reverts commit 223b1defbaea5648f461306d2ec466446110a1c7.

BUG= chromium:315401 
CQ-DEPEND=CL:223383
TEST=Tested the following:
1. Build and run unit tests.
2. Run modified platform_CrosDisksFilesystem (CL:223383) tests that
   expect mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems to work.
3. Verify that ext2/3/4 filesystems are mounted by Files.app.

cros-disks/disk_manager.cc

Request for merge into M-38 and M-39.

Please note that all merge requests must have been on or rolled into trunk
for at least 24 hours to be considered for merging (to ensure full bot
coverage and give an opportunity for any necessary reverts to occur).

To help facilitate this request, if you could please answer the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Has this change been on trunk for at least 24 hours?

2) Has this change shipped to at least one canary release (where applicable)?

3) Has anyone verified that these changes resolve the issue and cause no new
   crashes (via chromecrash/) or regressions?

4) Why is this necessary for this milestone?

Thanks!

(this message is auto-generated each time the merge-request label is
applied; if you have previously answered these questions kindly disregard)

Lets get this validated in ToT/Canary and then we can merge to M39

Project: chromiumos/third_party/autotest
Branch : release-R39-6310.B
Author : Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Commit : ecc3a7b9ab4f8c1ddd61fb6689bde4d26dfb5a5d

Code-Review  +2: Ben Chan
Commit-Queue +1: Ben Chan
Verified     +1: Ben Chan
Commit Queue   : Chumped
Change-Id      : Ifb9095966d6edb9a181b952d8ec040674fc1ca1f
Reviewed-at    : https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223399

Revert "Update platform_CrosDisksFilesystem ext2/3/4 tests."

This reverts commit dc6e31a09ca866b75bd06caa6323828b6f6ec5f0.

CL:223391 re-enables the support of ext2/3/4 filesystem in cros-disks.
This CL updates platform_CrosDisksFilesystem ext2/3/4 tests to verify
that mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems via cros-disks succeeds again.

BUG= chromium:315401 
TEST=Run platform_CrosDisksFilesystem tests.

(cherry picked from commit 4fdcff4414f3625bbc1ee7bd3a88446fc45196f0)

client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext2_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext3_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext4_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem.py

Project: chromiumos/platform2
Branch : release-R39-6310.B
Author : Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Commit : 954aa2fb0e1fa8eede8ba4f432e3183a4835a5fe

Code-Review  +2: Ben Chan
Commit-Queue +1: Ben Chan
Verified     +1: Ben Chan
Commit Queue   : Chumped
Change-Id      : I8718da0de9e445fbc5872c1a1fc2d9423f9bdff6
Reviewed-at    : https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223398

cros-disks: Re-enable support for ext2/3/4 filesystem.

This reverts commit 223b1defbaea5648f461306d2ec466446110a1c7.

BUG= chromium:315401 
TEST=Tested the following:
1. Build and run unit tests.
2. Run modified platform_CrosDisksFilesystem (CL:223383) tests that
   expect mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems to work.
3. Verify that ext2/3/4 filesystems are mounted by Files.app.

(cherry picked from commit 996d5e352b195b1779e850b66ff4f49673008a05)

cros-disks/disk_manager.cc

Merged to M39 for next beta push.

Pending M38 merge approval

Pending M38 merge approval

Merge approved for M38.

Project: chromiumos/third_party/autotest
Branch : release-R38-6158.B
Author : Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Commit : d87cb92a678314d63b25befcd0d213839ec638f7

Code-Review  +2: Ben Chan
Commit-Queue +1: Ben Chan
Verified     +1: Ben Chan
Commit Queue   : Chumped
Change-Id      : Id812a197d2efea3799d50a93c5065696de23699f
Reviewed-at    : https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223421

Revert "Update platform_CrosDisksFilesystem ext2/3/4 tests."

This reverts commit dc6e31a09ca866b75bd06caa6323828b6f6ec5f0.

CL:223391 re-enables the support of ext2/3/4 filesystem in cros-disks.
This CL updates platform_CrosDisksFilesystem ext2/3/4 tests to verify
that mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems via cros-disks succeeds again.

BUG= chromium:315401 
TEST=Run platform_CrosDisksFilesystem tests.

(cherry picked from commit 4fdcff4414f3625bbc1ee7bd3a88446fc45196f0)

client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext2_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext3_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/ext4_tests
client/site_tests/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem/platform_CrosDisksFilesystem.py

Project: chromiumos/platform2
Branch : release-R38-6158.B
Author : Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Commit : 9c7d5c79489e413b72e084fdde4610b1647adff7

Code-Review  +2: Ben Chan
Commit-Queue +1: Ben Chan
Verified     +1: Ben Chan
Commit Queue   : Chumped
Change-Id      : I7d5b91293957fd6da28607e97f7a3a5c362ae7cf
Reviewed-at    : https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223420

cros-disks: Re-enable support for ext2/3/4 filesystem.

This reverts commit 223b1defbaea5648f461306d2ec466446110a1c7.

BUG= chromium:315401 
TEST=Tested the following:
1. Build and run unit tests.
2. Run modified platform_CrosDisksFilesystem (CL:223383) tests that
   expect mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems to work.
3. Verify that ext2/3/4 filesystems are mounted by Files.app.

(cherry picked from commit 996d5e352b195b1779e850b66ff4f49673008a05)

cros-disks/disk_manager.cc

Merged into M38

closing

FYI, current stable channel (R38/6158.70.0) and dev channel (R40/6388.0.0) now support ext4 again.

beta channel (R39) does not include the fix yet.

And latest beta (R39/6310.23.0) also restores ext4 support.

Thanks!

 Issue 416720  has been merged into this issue.

 Issue 426342  has been merged into this issue.

 Issue 426342  has been merged into this issue.

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform2/+/996d5e352b195b1779e850b66ff4f49673008a05

commit 996d5e352b195b1779e850b66ff4f49673008a05
Author: Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed Oct 15 06:48:14 2014

cros-disks: Re-enable support for ext2/3/4 filesystem.

This reverts commit 223b1defbaea5648f461306d2ec466446110a1c7.

BUG= chromium:315401 
CQ-DEPEND=CL:223383
TEST=Tested the following:
1. Build and run unit tests.
2. Run modified platform_CrosDisksFilesystem (CL:223383) tests that
   expect mounting of ext2/3/4 filesystems to work.
3. Verify that ext2/3/4 filesystems are mounted by Files.app.

Change-Id: Iec79516705ec9c74b0118ae65f48ead4c7004fd0
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/223391
Reviewed-by: mukesh agrawal <quiche@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>

[modify] https://crrev.com/996d5e352b195b1779e850b66ff4f49673008a05/cros-disks/disk_manager.cc