On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 23:23:33 -0500, Donald Allen wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Greg A. Woods <wo...@planix.ca> wrote: > > > Perhaps this sentence from McKusick's memo about fsck will help you to > > understand: "fsck is able to repair corrupted file systems using > > procedures based upon the order in which UNIX honors these file system > > update requests." This is true for all Unix-based filesystems. > > I'm not going to put words in McKusick's mouth, but I think you have > misinterpreted this to mean that without ordering, recovery is > impossible. If that's what you think (and you've said so, except when > you've contradicted yourself), then you are wrong. Why? Because the > evidence (e.g., my experiments) says that recovery *is* possible. Not > guaranteed. Possible.
What you are arguing is effectively isomorphic to: 1. I have C code that does i = i++ + i++; 2. When I use compiler C1 it always give me this specific result for i. 3. When I use compiler C2 it sometimes (or always) gives me some different result. 4. B/c of #2 C2 compiler must be wrong -uwe
