Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:39:00 +0000 From: "Paul B. Mahol" <onemda@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fsck_y_enable: use -C Message-ID: <3a142e750906010939t710f6abah286c8f23f54747ab@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A240331.1000803@FreeBSD.org> References: <4A23D5A4.6020009@icyb.net.ua> <4A23F4B8.7000002@freebsd.org> <4A240331.1000803@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/1/09, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 01/06/2009 16:20 Andriy Gapon said the following: >>> What about the following patch? >>> I believe that the idea behind fsck_y_enable is to try to make unattend= ed >>> systems >>> with rw filesystems as recoverable as possible at the cost of potential >>> damage to >>> the data. The new "-C" option should not interfere with this goal, but >>> should >>> reduce recovery time, because currently fsck -y checks *all* filesystem= s >>> from >>> fstab, even those that are ro or clean: >>> >>> -C Check if the =93clean=94 flag is set in the superblock and skip= file >>> system checks if file system was properly dismounted and marked >>> clean. >>> >> >> One potential issue that I've just thought of is that fsck_msdosfs doesn= 't >> seem to >> support this option (even in a dummy way), so it would be a problem for >> those who >> have msdos filesystems in fstab and also have fsck_y_enable. > > I'm a bit concerned that we keep the current option as it is, but I > would support adding an fsck_y_enable_flags option to allow people to > pass -C if they are sure it will work in their environment. IMHO that solution is much better, considering there is "-t" & "-T" flag. --=20 Paul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3a142e750906010939t710f6abah286c8f23f54747ab>