From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Some very basic questions Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:09:40 +0200 Message-ID: <87r66adj5n.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <20081021132322.271ad728.skraw@ithnet.com> <1224597580.27474.93.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephan von Krawczynski , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1224597580.27474.93.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> (Chris Mason's message of "Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:59:40 -0400") List-ID: Chris Mason writes: > > Started interactively? I'm not entirely sure what that means, but in > general when you ask the user a question about if/how to fix a > corruption, they will have no idea what the correct answer is. While that's true today, I'm not sure it has to be true always. I always thought traditional fsck user interfaces were a UI desaster and could be done much better with some simple tweaks. For example the fsck could present the user a list of files that ended up in lost+found and let them examine them, instead of asking a lot of useless questions. Or it could give a high level summary on how many files in which part of the directory tree were corrupted. etc.etc. Or it could default to a high level mode that only gives such high level information to the user. So I don't think all corruptions could be done perfectly user friendly, but at least the basic user friendliness in many situations could be much improved. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com