--- Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, this is what the patch was supposed to fix.
> Could you try running
> fsck with the -d flag (debug)?
The result is:
...:/ # jfs_fsck -d /dev/hdb1
jfs_fsck version 1.1.7, 22-Jul-2004
processing started: 12/8/2004 8.49.47
Using default paramete
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 23:59 -0800, Sang Nguyen Van wrote:
> processing terminated: 12/8/2004 8:49:47 with return
> code: 10052 exit code: 8. [xchkdsk.c:472]
Here is a patch that should get you by this specific error, but I'm not
sure how much further you'll get. This is a failure to read an in
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:20 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Here is a patch that should get you by this specific error,
I bet you'd rather have a patch that compiles. Apply this one instead.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
Index: jfsutils/fsck/fsckmeta.c
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:53:33PM -0500, Sonny Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:40:21AM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I read an article in the German 'Linux Magazin' 11/04 about a
> > comparision of the different FS. They tested Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS,
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:39:29PM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:53:33PM -0500, Sonny Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:40:21AM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I read an article in the German 'Linux Magazin' 11/04 about
