Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:01:07 -0700 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates and/or fsck bugs or features? Message-ID: <199810221101.EAA10879@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> "Re: softupdates and/or fsck bugs or features?" (Oct 19, 12:31am)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 19, 12:31am, Warner Losh wrote: } Subject: Re: softupdates and/or fsck bugs or features? } In message <199810182115.OAA29673@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> Don Lewis writes: } : In the meantime, I'd recommend running fsck until it stops reconnecting } : stuff under lost+found. Then run it again without the -p option (so that } : it ignores the clean flag), which will allow it to fix the reference } : counts. } } That's what I wound up doing, with some scrubbing of lost+found } inbetween runs, to get back to a fsck that was clean. I think what } was happening was that the link count was adjusted for files that were } dangling because fsck couldn't attach them to lost+found because the } directory was full. That might explain the link count on lost+found, but I don't think it explains why the empty directories that were attached under lost+found had a link count greater than 2. The only thing I can think of to explain the latter is that the other directories that were not reattached still had their .. links pointing to the directories that were reattached. I suspect that fsck should probably be more aggressive about clearing unreferenced empty directories, but that's somewhat complicated because you don't want the fix to cause .. links to point to unallocated inodes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810221101.EAA10879>