On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:53:13AM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> Pardon me for being persistent. Have you missed the email below, or do you
> find the argument unconvincing?
Yes, unconvincing. Sorry.
Karel
> 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
>
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
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
