On 04/09/2015 11:04 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 09.04.15 10:51, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
My above questions where directed directly at Lennart since you cannot know
if Lennart's assumption which he bases his decisions on are
premature,correct, wrong or
On 04/09/2015 08:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Of course, this only works for GPT systems, i.e. modern systems, and
modern systems probably wouldn't run ext234 anyway, so maybe it's not
worth it... Actually neither xfs nor btrfs nor reiserfs appear to
require an fsck still, it's only ext234
Am 09.04.2015 um 12:17 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/09/2015 08:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Of course, this only works for GPT systems, i.e. modern systems, and
modern systems probably wouldn't run ext234 anyway, so maybe it's not
worth it... Actually neither xfs nor btrfs nor
On 04/09/2015 10:30 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 12:17 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/09/2015 08:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Of course, this only works for GPT systems, i.e. modern systems, and
modern systems probably wouldn't run ext234 anyway, so maybe it's not
Am 09.04.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Kay Sievers:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Kay Sievers:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
We generally follow the rule: we develop for the future, not
On Sun, 15.03.15 21:30, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
So this used to to be possible for ext4, by setting mount count one
below the mount limit. But mount limit now defaults to disabled, so
this stopped being possible.
Also, this suffers from the same problem that
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
We generally follow the rule: we develop for the future, not for the
past. A file system like ext234 is clearly not the future,
A filesystem like ext is being actively developed,maintained and new
features being
Am 09.04.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Kay Sievers:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
We generally follow the rule: we develop for the future, not for the
past. A file system like ext234 is clearly not the future,
A filesystem like ext is being actively
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Kay Sievers:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
We generally follow the rule: we develop for the future, not for the
past. A file system
On Thu, 09.04.15 10:51, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
My above questions where directed directly at Lennart since you cannot know
if Lennart's assumption which he bases his decisions on are
premature,correct, wrong or misguided until you know what those assumptions
are.
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. März 2015 um 19:58 Uhr
Von: Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org
An: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl
Cc: Jan Janssen medhe...@web.de, systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Betreff: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/2] fsck: Add support for EFI variable
based fsck
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Jan Janssen medhe...@web.de wrote:
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. März 2015 um 19:58 Uhr
Nobody would write to the flash on kernel updates, we only possibly
write to the ESP filesystem. The flash is not meant for such use
cases, it is known to brick all sorts of
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Janssen medhe...@web.de wrote:
---
man/systemctl.xml | 26
shell-completion/bash/systemctl.in | 8 -
shell-completion/zsh/_systemctl.in | 2 ++
src/fsck/fsck.c| 63
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:23:19PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Janssen medhe...@web.de wrote:
---
man/systemctl.xml | 26
shell-completion/bash/systemctl.in | 8 -
shell-completion/zsh/_systemctl.in | 2 ++
---
man/systemctl.xml | 26
shell-completion/bash/systemctl.in | 8 -
shell-completion/zsh/_systemctl.in | 2 ++
src/fsck/fsck.c| 63 +
src/shared/efivars.h | 21 +++--
Am 15.03.2015 um 20:50 schrieb Kay Sievers:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:58:35PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
If the filesytem is too dumb to have that info in the superblock flags
to store, to request a forced
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 08:50:03PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:58:35PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
If the filesytem is too dumb to have that info in the superblock flags
to store,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:23:19PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Janssen medhe...@web.de wrote:
---
man/systemctl.xml | 26
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 06:48:24PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:23:19PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jan Janssen medhe...@web.de wrote:
---
В Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:48:10 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl пишет:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 06:48:24PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:23:19PM +0100, Kay Sievers
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 06:48:24PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
It is legacy and does not need new features. It worked in the past and
will continue to work in the future, but it does not need new
questionable
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com wrote:
В Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:48:10 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl пишет:
No, they are absolutely not. Changing the EFI flash comes with
unpredictable risks, the flash is not meant to or designed for
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:58:35PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
If the filesytem is too dumb to have that info in the superblock flags
to store, to request a forced fsck, it is the problem of the file
system to
23 matches
Mail list logo
