Received:  by oss.sgi.com id <S42329AbQINBTY>;
	Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:19:24 -0700
Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:7479 "EHLO
        pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP
	id <S42279AbQINBTP>; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:19:15 -0700
Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via SMTP id SAA06513
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
	mail_from (kaos@melbourne.sgi.com)
Received: from kao2.melbourne.sgi.com (kao2.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.55.180]) by larry.melbourne.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id MAA11586; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:17:52 +1100
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
From:   Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com>
To:     Daniel Moore <dxm@clouds.melbourne.sgi.com>
cc:     William L Jones <jones@tacc.cc.utexas.edu>, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Can any one explain this behavior? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:03:59 +1100."
             <200009140103.MAA26966@clouds.melbourne.sgi.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:17:52 +1100
Message-ID: <3339.968894272@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-xfs-outgoing

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:03:59 +1100, 
Daniel Moore <dxm@clouds.melbourne.sgi.com> wrote:
>Actually I was thinking it would be a good idea to make xfs_check and
>xfs_repair fail or at least warn before checking a mounted FS...

# e2fsck /dev/hda3
e2fsck 1.15, 18-Jul-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
/dev/hda3 is mounted.  

WARNING!!!  Running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem may cause
SEVERE filesystem damage.

Do you really want to continue (y/n)?