Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:03:34 -0700 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM>, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Soft-Updates aware fsck available. Message-ID: <199810230703.AAA20052@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM> "Re: Soft-Updates aware fsck available." (Oct 22, 10:40pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 22, 10:40pm, Kirk McKusick wrote: } Subject: Re: Soft-Updates aware fsck available. } If there were a bad block, then `resolved' would not be true } and we would not take this action. I added the resolved variable, } so if we find something fishy in the first or second pass, we } will back off on the aggressive tossing in later passes. If you } remove a large file tree, then some of the subdirectories may not } be completely cleaned out yet, but you still want to nuke them. } So using empty as a criterion is likely to put a bunch of } undesirable stuff in lost+found. Does this seem reasonable? Ok, I feel somewhat better about this now, though autonuking has always bothered me. My big concern is that resolved might be cleared later on, and by then it would be too late ... Something that occurred to me in another thread where I was thinking that unreferenced empty directories should be cleared (the more conservative approach), is that unless you cleared the directories in the correct order, you could end up with links (usually "..") pointing to unallocated inodes if fsck were interrupted while it was cleaning. This would be bad because a subsequent fsck run could stumble over these dangling links and require manual intervention. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810230703.AAA20052>