[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Renaming lost+found
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Mo McKinlay wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> Today, H. Peter Anvin ( wrote:
> > Hello people... the original question was: can lost+found be
> > *renamed*, i.e. does the tools (e2fsck &c) use "/lost+found" by name,
> > or by inode? As far as I know it always uses the same inode number
> > (11), but I don't know if that is anywhere enforced.
> I seem to recall e2fsck complaining when I renamed lost+found, but that
> may well be a consistency check. Don't quote me on this, though.

(pretty easy to find out:)

[root]:# fsck -f /test
Parallelizing fsck version 1.19 (13-Jul-2000)
e2fsck 1.19, 13-Jul-2000 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
/lost+found not found. Create<y>?

It created lost+found with inode 183 as 11 was used by renamed dir.
No idea if it would have trouble salvaging a corrupt fs after this.
(but logic says no it dare not)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.066 / U:3.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site