On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:52:31AM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck
> > > > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for
> > > > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future?
> > >
> > > This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion
> > > that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck.<type> checkers.
> > >
> > > Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places.
>
> I did small investigation and result:
>
> extN: -a -y
>
> reaiser: -a -y
>
> vfat: -a -y
>
> minix: -a
>
> cramfs: I'm going to improve fsck.cramfs to accept -a and -y
>
> xfs: fsck.xfs is dummy shell script, does nothing, accepts everything:-)
>
> btrfs: has --repair, it seems like synonym for -a (I'll ask for more
> details at btrfs lists)
update (after git clone):
fsck.btrfs accepts and silently ignores -a
Karel
--
Karel Zak <k...@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
