Hi, On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:Two reasons against renaming: - we call it fsck-objects for a reason. We are working on a file system, which just so happens to be implemented in user space, not kernel space. If lost+found has to find a new name, so does fsck-objects. - lost+found has a special meaning, granted. So, a backup would not be made of it. So what? I *don't* want it backup'ed. I want to repair what was wrong with it. When I repaired it, the result is stored somewhere else. To backup lost+found would make as much sense as to backup /tmp. Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.25-mm1 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
