Is recovery mode supposed to hang after fsck?

Question

I have written a code that stores data in a matrix, but I want to shorten it so it iterates over itself. The number of matrices created is the known variable. If it was 3, the code would be:

for i = 1:31
    if idx(i) == 1
        C1 = [C1; Output2(i,:)];
    end
    if idx(i) == 2
        C2 = [C2; Output2(i,:)];
    end
    if idx(i) == 3
        C3 = [C3; Output2(i,:)];
    end
end

Solution 1

It definitely is not "supposed" to do that - but it happens.
Workaround: in the recovery menu just select Drop to root shell prompt and inside try

sudo fdisk -l

to get a list of drives and partitions

mount

should give something like

/dev/sdb5 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro)

and then with the partition you just found

sudo fsck -f /dev/sdb5
sudo mount /dev/sdb5 / -o remount,rw

fsck -f forces a check, even if there is no indication of a problem on the partition.
Now your root partition is error free and mounted (rw). You would now be able to do anything there with root permissions - so be careful!

Solution 2

It seems this is a known bug: system hangs after selecting certain menu items in Recovery Menu (Launchpad bug 1061239).

Solution 3

If you don't boot with the splash screen, then the hotkeys for mountcheck are not visible. The system is actually waiting for "M" for maintenance shell, "F" to fix FSCK problems, "S" to skip fsck, or "C" to cancel a check. This MAY be the problem you're actually seeing. Ctrl-C should un-wedge it, or boot with "single" and hope you get a shell prompt.

Comments

[FoggyDay]

What language are you using? MATLIB?

[user3575908]

Soeey matlab, fixed it.

[patrik]

Normally I would suggest a cell array here, any reason why you do not use that? eval may be used, but using a cell array instead is recommended by mathworks.

[gertvdijk]

Makes sense, yet the bug report is specific for 12.10, and the OP mentions 12.04. I think it's unlikely that this bug has existed this long in a release (if it does exist in 12.04) with just getting this little attention.

[tir38]

@gertvdijk I'm having same trouble with 12.04

[patrik]

This does unfortually not do the same as the example in the question. Sorry but -1 :(

[patrik]

Ok then I will remove the -1, but you should definitely edit your code. It makes no sense to have an idx, where all values are unique, since this is not the case in the question. It gives the inpression that you loop over the unique indices and not the index vector

[David]

@patrik Oh I see. I blame OP for being incredibly vague! I think it works as OP intended now, but it's definitely not the best way to do something like this!