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
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.
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7