In article <Pine.NEB.4.62.0605021313410.24437@photomat.hhhh.org>,
Konrad Schroder  <perseant@hhhh.org> wrote:

>Now, of course we want roll-forward if we are confident that it works; and 
>cleaning up allocated inodes with zero link count would also be nice. 
>(Zero link inodes don't represent a faulty filesystem---think 
>tmpfile(3)---but because the crash never closes the files properly it will 
>lose space over time.)  I haven't yet made the checkpoint-checking test 
>roll forward through the non-checkpoint writes to verify the roll-forward 
>code in fsck_lfs, though that's definitely on the agenda.  The in-kernel 
>roll-forward code does not work and should probably be scrapped.

But don't you need this for root?

christos