From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] New fsck option to ignore device-mapper crypto devices Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:42:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20080306174220.GH18188@mit.edu> References: <1204813967.8679.28.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <1204824227.7964.4.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthias Koenig , ludwig.nussel@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Kleikamp Return-path: Received: from BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU ([18.7.7.80]:42852 "EHLO biscayne-one-station.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932339AbYCFRmf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:42:35 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204824227.7964.4.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:23:47AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > Zero tells fsck not to check the filesystem during reboot. It's what > tells fsck -A which filesystems to check. If we don't expect the > filesystem to be check-able during that phase, a non-zero value won't > have any real meaning. I'm now beginning to understand why SuSE wanted fsck -M/-m (ignore mounted filesystems). Looks like SuSE has a very strange and non-standard usage scenario with fsck -A which is *not* just at boot-time. So before we try to figure out whether Yet Another FSCK option makes sense, maybe it would be good to get an explanation exactly *how* SuSE is using fsck -A, besides just at boot-time? - Ted