background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size)

[Kirk McKusick]

> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:14:27 -0400
> From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com>
> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick at mckusick.com>
> CC: fs at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful?
> 
> When there is a problem with frequent FS-related panics, more attention 
> is paid to the start-up messages, I think... People are more likely to 
> see that error message, for example, than they are to study the man-page 
> (unless something directs them there).
> 
> Being "only" a ports-committer, I can not update fsck.8 -- someone else 
> would have to do that.
> 
> Also, what about updating fsck_ffs.8 -- to specify, which of the 
> inconsistencies are and aren't checked by background fsck?
> 
> Yours,
> 
>     -mi

I have updated fsck(8) and will MFC it to 8 in a week.

	Kirk McKusick