| 1 |
Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 07:53, Jani Monoses wrote: |
| 3 |
> ... |
| 4 |
>> You are using an old version, or did not update your check* scripts, |
| 5 |
>> as this was fixed in July (?) already. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's true, but the new version is (i think) worse. |
| 8 |
Now, it appears, return values of 1,2 or 3 do nothing, even though both |
| 9 |
2 and 3 should cause a reboot (unless I'm missing something). |
| 10 |
All the rest cause a sulogin, and then ... no reboot. This seems to be |
| 11 |
taking a few chances with the users filesystems. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
man fsck says to me that we must do a bitwise and between 2 and the |
| 14 |
return value to determine whether a reboot is required. i.e.: |
| 15 |
if [ $((retval & 2)) != 0 ] ; then |
| 16 |
ewarn "fsck requires a reboot" |
| 17 |
rebootrequired="yes" |
| 18 |
fi |
| 19 |
And common sense tells me that it would be prudent to do a reboot after |
| 20 |
any manual fsck-ing, when retval > 3 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I've got a heavily modified version of the checkfs script(excerpt |
| 23 |
above). Having had some "heart-in-the-mouth" moments with the previous |
| 24 |
version, it's one of the things I keep an eye on...perhaps I'll have to |
| 25 |
submit it to bugzilla. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Charlie |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives