From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Sep  8 10:57:38 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from marcy.nas.nasa.gov (marcy.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.113.17])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 927F114CB3; Wed,  8 Sep 1999 10:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from wrstuden@marcy.nas.nasa.gov)
Received: from localhost (wrstuden@localhost)
	by marcy.nas.nasa.gov (8.9.3/NAS8.8.7n) with SMTP id KAA14033;
	Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@nas.nasa.gov>
To: Zhihui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu>
Cc: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re:  The usage of MNT_RELOAD
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990908133020.21415B-100000@sol.cs.binghamton.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.990908105507.8730F-100000@marcy.nas.nasa.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:

> 
> Does fsck have to run on a MOUNTED filesystem?  If so, your answer makes
> sense to me: if fsck modifies the on-disk copy of the superblock, it does
> not have to unmount and then remount the filesystem, it only need to
> reload the superlock for disk. 

I think it's more for the case where fsck has to run on a filesystem which
is mounted. It's better to fsck unmounted filesystems, but you don't
always have that option (say you want to fsck the fs with fsck on it :-)

Take care,

Bill



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message