4 ms·

No. You missed it. The OP stops filesystem checks happening fairly regularly. The great thing about computers, is identifying when you are repeating a behavior,

No. You missed it. The OP stops filesystem checks happening fairly regularly. The great thing about computers, is identifying when you are repeating a behavior, to either have the computer automate your behavior for you, or to change your behavior entirely. I am fully aware that the OP wants to cancel the fsck(8) in progress, and I am aware of both of the Debian and Systemd bugs in place to address the issue. Arguing on the Internet about whether or not he can or should Ctrl-C an active check, certainly when bugs already exist for both projects, is pointless. Instead, to prevent additional filesystem checks, there are tools to make this possible. Unless he likes getting frustrated that he cannot press Ctrl-C during a check on boot, which doesn't seem to be the case. His system is booted now, so he has some options available to him: * Do nothing, so the OP cannot press Ctrl-C on the next check. * Disable filesystem checks from future boots. * Switch from Systemd back to SysV Init. The concept of "going back in time" during an active check, to change a kernel parameter, so it doesn't start to begin with is a strange one. Bugs have been filed, it's even on the TODO for Systemd. So, why not discuss alternatives to the issue until it's fixed?

foxhill 12y ago
i haven't missed anything, you're inventing a scenario based on fragments of knowledge and assumptions. > is there a mysterious set of commands they came up with to skip an fsck the final sentence of the opening post. > I am fully aware that the OP wants to cancel the fsck(8) in progress well then why are you offering a priori fixes? > Instead, to prevent additional filesystem checks, there are tools to make this possible of course there are, but this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > The concept of "going back in time" during an active check, to change a kernel parameter, so it doesn't start to begin with is a strange one. no strange, impossible. this is my point. ok, imagine, someone had been in a car accident, and fractured their skull on the window because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. this discussion is akin to a doctor telling the patient (or whoever) that they could wear a seatbelt, and then this wouldn't have happened. just wear a seatbelt in future and you wont fracture your skull. just change the fsck counter/add a kernel boot parameter and fscks wont happen.

foxhill 12y ago

i haven't missed anything, you're inventing a scenario based on fragments of knowledge and assumptions. > is there a mysterious set of commands they came up with to skip an fsck the final sentence of the opening post. > I am fully aware that the OP wants to cancel the fsck(8) in progress well then why are you offering a priori fixes? > Instead, to prevent additional filesystem checks, there are tools to make this possible of course there are, but this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > The concept of "going back in time" during an active check, to change a kernel parameter, so it doesn't start to begin with is a strange one. no strange, impossible. this is my point. ok, imagine, someone had been in a car accident, and fractured their skull on the window because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. this discussion is akin to a doctor telling the patient (or whoever) that they could wear a seatbelt, and then this wouldn't have happened. just wear a seatbelt in future and you wont fracture your skull. just change the fsck counter/add a kernel boot parameter and fscks wont happen.