From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov  2 11:00:27 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA11923
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:00:27 -0800
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA11918
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:00:24 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA11967; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:00:17 -0800
To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@freefall.freebsd.org>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: More nits 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 1995 02:13:36 PST."
             <199511021013.CAA24971@freefall.freebsd.org> 
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:00:16 -0800
Message-ID: <11965.815338816@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Rather than yet another non-standard option, how about using the heuristic
> that if a filesystem doesn't have to be fsck'ed, it's okay for the
> mount to fail?  The theory being that a fs which must be fsck'ed is more
> critical than one which does not.  Both the CDROM filesystems and the DOS
> filesystems fit this heuristic.

That would leave any critical NFS filesystems to slip through the cracks.

I think David's right - another keyword is the way to go (but if nobody's
going to ADD this keyword, I propose we do the rc hack I suggested! :-)

					Jordan