From: Bas van Schaik <bas@tuxes.nl>
Subject: Scripting e2fsck: no errors, but still exit code 1 "FILE SYSTEM WAS
 MODIFIED"
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:37:37 +0200
Message-ID: <483006F1.6080008@tuxes.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi all,

Lately I encountered some vague corruptions on my filesystem which were
probably caused several weeks ago. My setup is quite extraordinary
(using ATA over Ethernet, RAID5, LVM, LUKS), a simple undetected network
failure did most probably cause these corruptions.

After I recovered the filesystem I decided to set up a weekly cron job
to perform an automatic e2fsck on a snapshot. This way, no
inconsistencies go undetected for longer than a week and problems can be
fixed before additional corruption occurs. However, there is a slight
problem with scripting e2fsck: it seems that e2fsck /always/ exits with
exit code 1 just because of the fact that the snapshot journal has been
replayed. Because of this, the script cannot tell whether there is a
real problem or not and keeps e-mailing me. This is a typical output of
such an e2fsck run:
> # e2fsck.static -f -y -v /dev/loop1
> e2fsck 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008)
> /dev/loop1: recovering journal
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
>
> /dev/loop1: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
>
> 12609263 inodes used (4.58%)
>   258729 non-contiguous inodes (2.1%)
>          # of inodes with ind/dind/tind blocks: 1174647/20098/15
> 485401393 blocks used (88.17%)
>        0 bad blocks
>      108 large files
>
>  8730706 regular files
>  3867308 directories
>        0 character device files
>        3 block device files
>       12 fifos
> 95342096 links
>    11090 symbolic links (9640 fast symbolic links)
>      135 sockets
> --------
> 107951350 files

As you can see: no additional errors. Does anyone have any ideas on how
to work around this?

Cheers,

  Bas