Am Dienstag, 19. März 2013 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > Martin, I didn't state that ext4 cannot perform journal recovery, which > you previously misunderstood. As mentioned above I stated it made a > call to e2fsck to perform the task. And, again, apparently this is not > the case. If you want to excoriate me for getting this wrong, that's > fine. But don't do it in a way that suggests it was intentional, or > that I made no effort to verify the information before I stated it. I > spent at least 30 minutes Googling trying to track down documents > explaining the ext4 journal recovery code in the kernel. I simply > didn't find any. The only thing I found were descriptions of e2fsck > based journal recovery. Stan, you are still a XFS expert, you are still a hardware expert, and I love reading your posts at debian-user, I sometimes even search for those, you still know a lot and heck you are still Stan and as such without any achievement or knowledge at all a precious being. Just like anyone else on this list (and elsewhere) is a precious being just as they are. So whats so difficult with admitting that what you wrote about Ext4 and journal replay as at least misleading? Heck, even I was confused at first. Cause the manpage of fsck.ext4 IMHO is not really clear about that topic to say the least. I tested it out for a reason. I am concerned about the tendency I perceive in open source, heck general computer communities to bind own value to being right on a topic. There is no, absolutely no connection at all. You and everyone else is valuable and precious without any prerequisite at all. I also take some to learn out of this myself: Cause I was obsessed with being right myself and bound my value to it as well. I have overdone my previous mails. Sorry for that. Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
