On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 09:19:17AM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > That's actually not an error. It's a report which is generated every
> > 24 hours, indicating that there has been 3 errors since the last time
> > the error count has been cleared, with the first error taking place at
> > Sat Nov 6 10:27:57 2010 (US/Eastern) in the function
> > ext4_journal_start_sb(), at line 251, and the most recent error taking
> > place at Sat Nov 6 18:02:28 2010 (US/Eastern), in the function
> > ext4_put_super() at line 719. This is a new feature which was added
> > in 2.6.36.
>
> Nice. But the issue you're not mentioning is: What errors could have
> happened on the 6th of november? Should Con worry about those errors?
It looks like those errors were probably caused by I/O errors while
writing to the journal. Maybe due to a flakey USB connection,
perhaps? It would be useful to look at the /var/log/messagfes around
that date to get a more detailed look.
> OK, the chances are that he has rebooted since november, and that an
> older fsck fixed the errors, but not cleared the "fs errror log". Would
> these errors have triggered a "remount-readonly" if the fs was mounted
> like that?
Yes, errors that get recorded into the superblock are also errors that
would cause a read-only remount if the file system is set that way.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
