From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: FEATURE Req: integrate badblocks check into fsck.reiser* Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:16:06 -0700 Message-ID: <44F8BF36.1010007@namesys.com> References: <200609012250.44548.vs@namesys.com> <44F8B3C8.1050802@slaphack.com> <44F8BE78.1080503@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <44F8BE78.1080503@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Masover Cc: Peter , reiserfs-list@namesys.com David Masover wrote: > Peter wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:27:20 -0500, David Masover wrote: >> snip... >>>> both mkfs.reiserfs and fsck.reiserfs have -B option to accept list of >>>> bad blocks. We thought that should be enough. >>> It really should. Why bother with a patch? Just write a wrapper >>> script >>> that runs badblocks and passes in the list to mkfs. >> >> It was just a thought from userland. My perspective was that a user, >> not a >> hard-boiled geek, might get lulled into a false sense of security but >> may >> not have the wherewithal to write a wrapper. If nothing else, when the >> final doc is written (did I say final?:)), it should include a notice >> about not running badblocks. > > Well, let's see... Most hard drives come more thoroughly tested at > the factory than anything badblocks would do. They leave more tested, they arrive.... ;-) and you assume it is a new drive..... > Also, it seems redundant to have every single mkfs have to implement a > badblocks flag.. > > I'd suggest a universal wrapper, then, or a modification to the "mkfs" > frontend, so that this works the same way across all filesystems. > Something like "mkfs -B -t reiser4" > >