Re: Correct fsck behavior on boot

[Anders Aagaard <aagaande@gmail.com>]

Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> I dont really like both: idea and flag name.
> Can you elaborate a bit on your reasoning behind the patch ?
> 

http://bugs.gentoo.org/195988

Currently closed as RESOLVED_FIXED with preen aliased to --check --fix 
more or less.  It's not something I expect will be included upstream 
anytime soon, but if the gentoo developers refuse to support reiser4 in 
init scripts it has to be supported elsewhere.  And they default to -p 
on linux systems.

> 
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Anders Aagaard <aagaande@gmail.com 
> <mailto:aagaande@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> 
>         Why one have to worry about cleanness   of a  _journaled_ fs ?
>         Its seems like immediate return on -a is intended behavior.
> 
> 
>     I suspect it is, I'm just making sure I have something to fire back
>     with when a gentoo developer complains about my patch here:
> 
>     http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237393
> 
> 
> 
>         On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Anders Aagaard
>         <aagaande@gmail.com <mailto:aagaande@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:aagaande@gmail.com <mailto:aagaande@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> 
>            Hi
> 
>            What's the correct options to pass to reiser4.fsck on boot to
>         get it
>            to check the filesystem when it's not marked as clean?
> 
>            reiser4 fsck does implement -a, but it seems to return right
>         away,
>            including when the filesystem wasn't unmounted cleanly.  Is the
>            filesystem integrity still secured by hash'es, so skipping
>         fsck is
>            intentional?
>            --check --fix seems a tad bit excessive on every boot.
> 
>            Anders Aagaard
> 
> 
> 
>         -- 
>         connecting the dots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> connecting the dots