From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck shouln't consider superblock summaries as fatal Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:58:39 -0500 Message-ID: <48B41A1F.5060809@redhat.com> References: <20080826104502.GH3392@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:58881 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755333AbYHZPBF (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080826104502.GH3392@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andreas Dilger wrote: > Running e2fsck on a quiescent (but mounted) filesystem fails in the > common case where the superblock inode and block count summaries are > wrong. The kernel doesn't update these values except at unmount time. > If there are other errors in the filesystem then they will already > cause e2fsck to consider the filesystem invalid, so these minor errors > should not. If by quiescent, if you mean ->write_super_lockfs, shouldn't that path be indistinguishable from an unmount? Why wouldn't write_super_lockfs also update these counts, rather than working around it in fsck? -Eric > Don't consider only an error in the superblock summary as incorrect. > The kernel does not update this field except at unmount time. Any > other unfixed errors will themselves mark the filesystem invalid. > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger