Subject: Re: LFS status?
To: None <>
From: Christos Zoulas <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/03/2006 00:36:08
In article <>,
Konrad Schroder  <> wrote:

>Now, of course we want roll-forward if we are confident that it works; and 
>cleaning up allocated inodes with zero link count would also be nice. 
>(Zero link inodes don't represent a faulty filesystem---think 
>tmpfile(3)---but because the crash never closes the files properly it will 
>lose space over time.)  I haven't yet made the checkpoint-checking test 
>roll forward through the non-checkpoint writes to verify the roll-forward 
>code in fsck_lfs, though that's definitely on the agenda.  The in-kernel 
>roll-forward code does not work and should probably be scrapped.

But don't you need this for root?