On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:49:20AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Sorry, for my report, as it was badly misleading.
>
> That the fs should be checked is out of question, if the datestamp is in
> the future. But that was not the issue I had in mind. The messages by
> fsck (ext3) was like this:
>
> "Superblock mount time in Future -> Check forced
> (...)
> Disk gone unchecked since 46905 days. Check forced"
>
> The second one is wrong, considering, that fsck already determined that
> something happened to the filesystem in the future. It should not be
> printed, or if printed, not saying that it was last checked 125 years
> ago...
The first one was complaining about the last mount time. The second
one was complaining about the last check time being in the future. I
can fix it so that it checks if the last check time is in the future
and print a better message, but it is purely a cosemtic issue.
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
