-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/16/2014 3:22 PM, martin f krafft wrote: > All of this considered, and assuming it won't be hard, are there > other reasons against a -q flag to e2fsck, which uses the same > logic to print information to stdout or exit() as it uses to > determine whether to run a long check?
I think there is some expectation mismatch going on here. Aside from the mount count check, e2fsck normally skips the check if the dirty flag is not set. If the FS is currently mounted, then the dirty flag is set, so trying this test at that time would always say there is going to be a long fsck. As a result, the answer to the question "will there be a long fsck on the next boot" depends on whether or not the system will be shutdown cleanly or not, so you really can't ask the question and get a meaningful result. The only thing you can get a meaningful result from is "will the mount count limit be reached on the next boot"? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUkJrHAAoJENRVrw2cjl5RjAQH/i8UTeNh+TaiJeq9W3VQlI7V EdYy/gsuhjNHxufEv1Xu1JwBXOufW6dXjztzjW/fOIyRfo85hCDCkvQ3nE/lz6rX WO9Fqb9q8RGO5bsIBmIt9CWArembvDNNeYoAHy/amvx7199dofADEK+4m5jBYDsm HVqDu560B1i0nv0H7G1ZdqXate4uNVU0v72YKBcG/cZQXY+TXNQC52f5auiC4RNv G7wgjstpEfmxjtSGuav+49dllJdoBzpoFIdknD/nxH2Yoqzs7YgNeyRWse9ivFRj t6ocbIt4O8WodcPoDdMr+tJ9BhUDP/rmfNgEp1k6N2cX7ifYySZrRdGsI877sPI= =uMG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
