On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 21:36 -0500, David Bright wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 17:31, Ian Lepore <i...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 17:09 -0500, Mark Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > etc/rc.d/fsck doesn't know how to interpret the new exit code and
> > > now
> > > just drops to a single-user shell when it is encountered. […]
> > >
> > > Is there any reason etc/rc.d/fsck shouldn't automatically retry
> > > (up to
> This is, in fact, the reason that I made the change I did. I was
> trying to put in a retry loop to rc.d/fsck, but found that I couldn’t
> get it to work because fsck and fsck_ffs were not exiting with non-
> zero status. The drop to single user is not really due to the
> specific (new) error code of 16, it is due to the fact that fsck_ffs
> is now exiting with a non-zero status when it hasn’t completely
> cleaned the file system; /any/ non-zero status would cause the
> current rc.d/fsck script to go to single user. Prior to my change,
> fsck_ffs was exiting with a zero status even though it had not
> completely cleaned the filesystem and told the user to run it again.
> > fsck_ffs already has a -R flag to automatically retry, wouldn't
> > that be
> > a better mechanism for handling this new type of retry?
> That’s true; however, there is currently no way to pass that flag
> through the filesystem-agnostic fsck wrapper called from rc.d/fsck to
> the filesystem-specific fsck_ffs program that it calls. One could
> implement a similar flag on the fsck wrapper to be passed along to
> the filesystem-specific checker, but I think fsck_ffs is the only one
> that currently implements such a flag.
fsck -T ffs:-R
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"