Re: Renaming lost+found

[Mike Galbraith]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Mo McKinlay wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Today, H. Peter Anvin ([e-mail]) 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.

(pretty easy to find out:)

[root]:# fsck -f /test
Parallelizing fsck version 1.19 (13-Jul-2000)
e2fsck 1.19, 13-Jul-2000 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
/lost+found not found.  Create<y>?

It created lost+found with inode 183 as 11 was used by renamed dir.
No idea if it would have trouble salvaging a corrupt fs after this.
(but logic says no it dare not)

	-Mike