From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 22 18:37:19 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFC51065678
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:37:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com [64.81.247.49])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085308FC16
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by chez.mckusick.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6MIbFqv062887;
	Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <201007221837.o6MIbFqv062887@chez.mckusick.com>
To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com>
In-reply-to: <4C487C73.9070709@aldan.algebra.com> 
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:37:15 -0700
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
Cc: fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic:
	handle_written_inodeblock: bad size) 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:37:19 -0000

> 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