Re: A couple of questions

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Steve Pratt wrote:

>Oleg Drokin wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello!
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:11:37AM -0500, Steve Pratt wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>>superblock. Neither 3.5 nor 3.6 superblock appear to have a label
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>field,
>  
>
>>>>>but mkfs has an option for it.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Labels are supported in reiserfs v3.6 format. (2.4 supopr was merged
>>>>        
>>>>
>into
>  
>
>>>>2.4.19-pre3, if I remember correctly).
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Ok, so it looks like I can use the option and if they have the right
>>>      
>>>
>kernel
>  
>
>>>code it will just work.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>In fact even kernel without "support" will work.
>>Support is only means that the space in superblock is marked as used by
>>label/uuid instead of being marked as "reserved".
>>You cannot query uuid/label from withing the kernel, anyway.
>>    
>>
>
>Ok. This is fine.
>
>  
>
>>>>You can circumvient this by echo Yes | reiserfsck ...
>>>>if you need.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Actually this is not trivial in fork/exec in C code.  Especially when I
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>I think it is.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>want to preserve the return code from the fsck.  If you know of a coding
>>>trick to do this I would be interested.
>>>      
>>>
>
>(pseudocode removed) ...
>
>Thanks! I have this working now.
>
>One extra question on this.  I assume that if in Fix mode and errors are
>encountered that fsck.resiserfs will prompt to fix each error and that
>there is no way to have it answer 'Yes' automatically like the ext2 -y
>option.
>
>If not then I will probably have to take Jonathan Briggs suggestion of a
>third process to answer 'Yes' repeatedly.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Why in the world do you want to run fsck without running it manually, 
and passing all information to the user?

Hans