Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 2 Jan 1999 00:39:54 -0500 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: scary ext2 filesystem question |
| |
Well, the confusing part is that fsck reports some size/count changes (I don't remember the exact error message right now), something like inode number x, was y, should be z, corrected. Now, if I write down that inode numbers, and find corresponding files after fsck finishes, they are in many cases corrupted (maybe in all cases?). I was always wondering, what would happen if fsck DID NOT repair the files. After all, it knows that older value.
What likely happened is that part of the metadata (an indirect block, containing a block reference) got written out to disk, while another part of the metadata (the inode, containing the size of the file) didn't make it out to disk. In this case, e2fsck errs on the side of not losing data, which means that instead of throwing away the newly allocated block, it will expand the size field in the inode.
Now, what that UPS can't do is prevent me from "improving" kernel sources and making mistakes along a way. If you by any chance get hold of a model with such functionality, please inform me fast where should I go and buy it. :)
Well, you could simply not make mistakes. <grin>
- Ted
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |