Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:29:55 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current unusable after a crash Message-ID: <a05200f1dba0854968c9b@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <3DE29DE6.CDD96F3F@mindspring.com> References: <200211250959.39594.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021125102358.33619A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20021125172445.GA8953@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3DE29DE6.CDD96F3F@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:02 PM -0800 2002/11/25, Terry Lambert wrote:
> If you made system dumps mandatory (or marked swap with a non-dump
> header in case of panic), this still would not handle the "silent
> reboot", "double panic", or "single panic with disk I/O trashed"
> cases. 8-(.
How about we do the safe thing, and only do background fsck if we
can prove that the system state is something where it would be
suitable? Or would that mean that we almost never do background fsck?
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
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?a05200f1dba0854968c9b>