| 1 |
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:12, Jason Rhinelander wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Snip... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> From man fsck, the exit codes of fsck are as follows: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 0 - No errors |
| 8 |
> 1 - File system errors corrected |
| 9 |
> 2 - System should be rebooted |
| 10 |
> 4 - File system errors left uncorrected |
| 11 |
> 8 - Operational error |
| 12 |
> 16 - Usage or syntax error |
| 13 |
> 32 - Fsck canceled by user request |
| 14 |
> 128 - Shared library error |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> From that, it seems that 0, 1, and possibly 2 and 32 are acceptable, |
| 17 |
> but to make the acceptable values clearer (and easier if 32 is allowed) |
| 18 |
> we might consider changing the elif to: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> elif [ $((retval & ~(0|1|2|32))) -eq 0 ] |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> That more clearly indicates that 0, 1, and 2 (or combinations thereof) |
| 23 |
> are accepted values, but anything else is not. It also allows us to |
| 24 |
> add, for example, 32, which IMHO seems like it should be allowed as |
| 25 |
> well. Yes, it isn't known that the filesystem is okay, but if I user |
| 26 |
> really wants to cancel it, they can. Additionally, 64 is currently not |
| 27 |
> defined - if it became something like "non-critical filesystem errors |
| 28 |
> left uncorrected", it'd be trivial to add. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Agreed except for return code 2. If the "System should be rebooted", |
| 32 |
then surely it shouldn't continue booting. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I would argue that fsck.jfs shouldn't return code 2 after a journal log |
| 35 |
replay as that is a normal function, not an error. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> > Now for the odditie: I have two gentoo boxes, both have recently run |
| 38 |
> > "emerge sync && emerge baselayout". I've double checked and both boxes |
| 39 |
> > have the same version of baselayout. /However/, they have different |
| 40 |
> > versions of checkfs! I've reemerged baselayout on both machines, but |
| 41 |
> > they still have different versions of checkfs 1.23 and 1.29. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> At a guess, I'd say the updated files are pending due to config |
| 44 |
> protection, and you haven't merged them yet with etc-update? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Nope, on both systems etc-update returns: |
| 47 |
Scanning Configuration files... |
| 48 |
Exiting: Nothing left to do; exiting. :) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
If I get time later, I'll delete the offending file and re-emerge |
| 52 |
baselayout again to see what happens. If that doesn't get me the same |
| 53 |
version of checkfs on both systems, and given my limited knowledge of |
| 54 |
portage, I'm left wondering if there are two versions of |
| 55 |
baselayout-1.8.6.10-r1 kicking around on different mirrors (!). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
~ |
| 58 |
Mike |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> -- |
| 64 |
> -- Jason Rhinelander |
| 65 |
> -- Gossamer Threads, Inc. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Dr. Michael C Lincoln |
| 69 |
Vision And Synthetic Environments |
| 70 |
University of Essex |
| 71 |
OFFICE: 01206 87 3708 |
Archives