Re: Renaming lost+found

Mo McKinlay (mmckinlay@gnu.org)
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:41:15 +0000 (UTC)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Today, H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com) wrote:

> Hello people... the original question was: can lost+found be
> *renamed*, i.e. does the tools (e2fsck &c) use "/lost+found" by name,
> or by inode? As far as I know it always uses the same inode number
> (11), but I don't know if that is anywhere enforced.

I seem to recall e2fsck complaining when I renamed lost+found, but that
may well be a consistency check. Don't quote me on this, though.

Mo.

- --
Mo McKinlay
mmckinlay@gnu.org
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG/PGP Key: pub 1024D/76A275F9 2000-07-22

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjp0kgYACgkQRcGgB3aidfngIACdH4Ze9KRUS/jExERYM0Jt0n4e
WyMAoKxzOr7KnVeEoHCHKlCBjNcncx8U
=myDq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/