Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
fsadm failed: 3
man fsadm
DIAGNOSTICS
On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of 2 indicates the operation was interrupted by the user. A
status code of 3 indicates the requested check operation could not be performed because the filesystem is mounted and does
not support an online fsck(8). A status code of 1 is used for other failures.
Yeah but did fsadm fail? No, as a whole its operation succeeded. Can we say fsadm failed to run fsck? I guess that's one way to look at it, but then it failed to understand it shouldn't request a check operation on XFS in the first place.
Chris Murphy
Current logic of lvm is to call fsadm to check blockdevice (lvm2 knows
nothing about about filesystems).
fsadm translate this to check xfs - which is not supported by xfs (I've no
idea if there ever be support for this operation) - so fsadm reports it has
failed to do any check.
lvm2 detects through error code 3 that requested operation is not supported,
but considered safe to be ignore and continues.
Of course fsadm could return 0 - but then it wouldn't be able to recognize
if check really was made or just skipped.
This message is only shown in verbose mode - and it's mainly for developer to
know what has happened (or actually not happened)
Zdenek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
