| To: | Daniel Moore <dxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Can any one explain this behavior? |
| From: | Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:17:52 +1100 |
| Cc: | William L Jones <jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | Your message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:03:59 +1100." <200009140103.MAA26966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:03:59 +1100, Daniel Moore <dxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Actually I was thinking it would be a good idea to make xfs_check and >xfs_repair fail or at least warn before checking a mounted FS... # e2fsck /dev/hda3 e2fsck 1.15, 18-Jul-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 /dev/hda3 is mounted. WARNING!!! Running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem may cause SEVERE filesystem damage. Do you really want to continue (y/n)? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE - xfs_zero_eof, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Should open_by_inode have a special dentry ops?, William L Jones |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Can any one explain this behavior?, Daniel Moore |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Can any one explain this behavior?, Thomas Graichen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |