On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dan McGrath <danmcgrath.ca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath <danmcgrath.ca@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> btrfs.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
> index 691adef..78161a9 100644
> --- a/btrfs.c
> +++ b/btrfs.c
> @@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>
> if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) {
> argv[0] = "check";
> + } else if (!strcmp(bname, "fsck.btrfsck")) {
> + exit(0);
> } else {
> argc--;
> argv++;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Shouldn't it be fsck.btrfs, not fsck.btrfsck?
Also, fsck.xfs does a bit more than just an exit(0), maybe there's
some merit to what it does. It's a simple shellscript, so check it
out.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
