Steve Pratt wrote: >Oleg Drokin wrote: > > >>Hello! >> >> > > > >>On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:11:37AM -0500, Steve Pratt wrote: >> >> >>>>>superblock. Neither 3.5 nor 3.6 superblock appear to have a label >>>>> >>>>> >field, > > >>>>>but mkfs has an option for it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Labels are supported in reiserfs v3.6 format. (2.4 supopr was merged >>>> >>>> >into > > >>>>2.4.19-pre3, if I remember correctly). >>>> >>>> >>>Ok, so it looks like I can use the option and if they have the right >>> >>> >kernel > > >>>code it will just work. >>> >>> > > > >>In fact even kernel without "support" will work. >>Support is only means that the space in superblock is marked as used by >>label/uuid instead of being marked as "reserved". >>You cannot query uuid/label from withing the kernel, anyway. >> >> > >Ok. This is fine. > > > >>>>You can circumvient this by echo Yes | reiserfsck ... >>>>if you need. >>>> >>>> >>>Actually this is not trivial in fork/exec in C code. Especially when I >>> >>> > > > >>I think it is. >> >> > > > >>>want to preserve the return code from the fsck. If you know of a coding >>>trick to do this I would be interested. >>> >>> > >(pseudocode removed) ... > >Thanks! I have this working now. > >One extra question on this. I assume that if in Fix mode and errors are >encountered that fsck.resiserfs will prompt to fix each error and that >there is no way to have it answer 'Yes' automatically like the ext2 -y >option. > >If not then I will probably have to take Jonathan Briggs suggestion of a >third process to answer 'Yes' repeatedly. > >Steve > > > > > > > > Why in the world do you want to run fsck without running it manually, and passing all information to the user?
Hans
