Duane Griffin wrote:
> How close to 1-1 does "-n" relate to non-"-n" ?
>
> For example, does e2fsck take into consideration the changes it would
> have done itself in regular mode when it proceeds to the next problem
> and/or phase of a -n operation?
It corresponds perfectly to you answering "no" to all questions :)
Sorry, I don't have a much better answer than that.
A good answer, even if it's one that can be found in the manual :-).
> If it doesn't, then that command is, well, totally useless.
That is too strong.
I don't think so.
If it doesn't take into account own changes, then the -n command is
unable to produce even a slightly accurate resemblence of what would
happen if I did a real run.
And that's about the only use case I can come up with for -n...
You should be able to get an idea how severe the damage
is, at least.
If it's complete inaccurate, I can't trust the result, so that doesn't
help me much, if any.
From a quick read of the code it looks like your problem
is related to dodgy data in the superblock, and e2fsck will attempt to
recover & continue by reading the backup superblock.
Thanks a lot for checking !
I wonder then, will it write back this alternate superblock?
Is there anything I can do to control the process, like:
Do a test mount with one of the alternate superblocks?
Tell fsck to test a specific superblock; afterwards tell fsck to use a
specific superblock?
That would be useful.
It does that regardless of whether you use -n,
so in that respect at least it will operate in the
same way as "normal" operation.
Ok, that's very good to know, thanks a lot.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
