From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42926 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751470AbaAFOza (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:55:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:55:17 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: Tom Gundersen Cc: Dave Chinner , Chris Murphy , Btrfs BTRFS Subject: Re: missing /sbin/fsck.btrfs Message-ID: <20140106145517.GG31045@x2.net.home> References: <13F547BC-D81C-45FB-9DC8-9C076B8605EF@colorremedies.com> <20131127005126.GC10988@dastard> <20131201230130.GS8803@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 06:18:53PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: > * fsck is skipped for filesystems where the relevant helper does not > exist, so fs_passno=1 has the same effect for xfs and btrfs > filesystems (either way, nothing happens). > > That still leaves non-systemd systems and calling "fsck -A" manually. > Maybe a good solution would be to patch fsck to adopt systemd's > behavior, which would avoid every filesystem having to ship these > "fake" fsck helpers? What do you think Karel? It's already implemented for years, "fsck -A" ignores filesystems without fsck. helpers. It only complains if you explicitly specify the device on command line (e.g. fsck /dev/sdb1). Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com