[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "clean" to be replaced with "flawless" or "faultless" ?

Markus.Hiereth@freenet.de wrote:
> If, as you explain, "clean" just means "dirty bit not set" and
> actually does not reflect the result of a file system check, the
> adjective "clean" should not be used.

I have to admit I'm not completely confident about what fsck does mean
by "clean".  Usually when fsck finishes without an error, that means
that it has rendered the filesystem "flawless", but does it intend us
to understand "clean" as covering all of that or just the relatively
trivial final step?

A further complication is that a filesystem which is "clean" in the
sense of having been unmounted in an orderly fashion may nonetheless
have errors - that's why filesystems get periodic checks.
>> Perhaps some equivalent of "unmarked" would work?
> I would not use "unmarked" (en) or "unmarkiert" (de) as it raises the
> question what kind of mark it refers to.
> In a Linux-Book for Beginners, the author Michael Kofler speeks of a
> "valid bit" in the superblock of an ext2 file system. The description
> there would favor usage of the adjective "clear" in a message that
> states that there is no need to check the data on a file system.

Googling, I find an ext2-era comment in the BTS:
which leaves me even more uncertain.

Also, tune2fs(8) on the -c option claims that "If you are using
journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be marked
dirty".  So why does fsck.ext4 still declare it "clean"?

> Best regards
> Markus
> PS: Tatsaya, maintainer of w3m package, recently informed me that
> w3m-0.5.3-30 will contain the last versions of w3m.1, w3mman.1,
> FAQ.html and MANUAL.html and the respectiv German translations.

Yes, I saw that, congrats!
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

Reply to: