Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:37:15 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size) Message-ID: <201007221837.o6MIbFqv062887@chez.mckusick.com> In-Reply-To: <4C487C73.9070709@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:14:27 -0400 > From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> > To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> > CC: fs@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful? > > When there is a problem with frequent FS-related panics, more attention > is paid to the start-up messages, I think... People are more likely to > see that error message, for example, than they are to study the man-page > (unless something directs them there). > > Being "only" a ports-committer, I can not update fsck.8 -- someone else > would have to do that. > > Also, what about updating fsck_ffs.8 -- to specify, which of the > inconsistencies are and aren't checked by background fsck? > > Yours, > > -mi I have updated fsck(8) and will MFC it to 8 in a week. Kirk McKusick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201007221837.o6MIbFqv062887>