Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:16:18 -0800 From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newfs and mount vs. half-baked disks Message-ID: <20031110171618.GD71376@roark.gnf.org> In-Reply-To: <200311060943.34284.wes@softweyr.com> References: <200311041737.20467.wes@softweyr.com> <20031105015709.GC28915@dan.emsphone.com> <20031105081516.GA38016@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <200311060943.34284.wes@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:43:34AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote: > > I found an unused field called "fs_state" and used that, as Kirk > suggested. Here's the new patch, which changes fsck to notice the > fs_state and doesn't require re-writing all of the superblocks. > > This patch adds a -E (generate errors) option to fsck, causing fsck to > exit at various stages or to otherwise leave the state of fs_state and > fs_clean in other than pristine conditions. I will, of course, commit > the -E changes separately from the fs_state changes. > > Thanks in advance for reviewing. And yes, I did manage to attach the > patch this time. Doh! After a cursory glance, a couple of nits. Perhaps ErrorFlag should be Eflag to be consistent with the style of the rest of the source? Also, your error reporting in fsck_ffs is fs.state != 0 is less than obvious: "superblock %d is not finished" Perhaps it could be "superblock %d is in an inconsistent state, this is probably due to a premature exit of newfs" or some such message. -gordon [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/r8fiRu2t9DV9ZfsRAhebAJ98YoH5Bm9ldLenqlWxfXzPriLedQCdH/4U Bam0eoJTWuYZMfT7Lj1c8Sg= =Pqwh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031110171618.GD71376>