Pardon me for being persistent. Have you missed the email below, or do you find the argument unconvincing? On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:13:34PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:56:49AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 02:26:58PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > > > fsck -A output does not indicate the offending device(s), when a device is > > > nonexistent and declared without nofail (e2fsck doesn't mention anything, and > > > dosfsck outputs just "No such file or directory") > > > > Hmm... I'd like to be conservative with this kind of warnings. The > > "nofail" option is relatively new and I guess that many people still > > successfully rely on the old behavior (because e2fsck doesn't mention > > anything ;-). > > The motivation is that, currently, fsck bombs out during system boot without > any hint (which, I hope you'll agree, is not helpful). A -V option won't make > any difference for this use case. > > > I have applied the patch below -- it prints the warning if -V > > (verbose) option is specified. > > ignore() is called multiple times per filesystem, so it's not the best place > to put the warning, imho. > > -S -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
