Re: [RFC PATCH] check: try to fix the test device if it gets corrupted

["Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:02:29PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:53:01AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:40:47PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > So one thing we could do is _xfs_scratch_repair and _xfs_test_repair?
> > 
> > Hmm, or maybe _xfs_repair_scratch and _xfs_repair_test; since at least
> > for English speakers verb-object is probably more natural.  But if you
> > or Darrick have a strong preference I'm don't care that much.
> 
> I'm not native English speaker, you (and other native English speakers)
> decide :)

TBH I wish we'd call them scratchdev and testdev, e.g.

_xfs_repair_scratchdev
_xfs_repair_testdev

So that it's plainly obvious that we're talking about a device and not
the verbs scratch or test.  I guess you could also argue that we're
really repairing a filesystem on the device and that it should be
_xfs_repair_testfs...

--D

> 
> > 
> > > Then all existing _scratch_xfs_repair calls need a rename, but I'm fine
> > > with the rename.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The other thing is how much of the cleanup in common/xfs should be
> > > > segregated into a separate commit (and I'm not sure how competent I'm
> > > > going to be ate doing that cleanup, but I'm willing to give it a go).
> > > 
> > > I think we can do minimal cleanup in this patch (like the rename of
> > > _scratch_xfs_repair to _xfs_scratch_repair) and do other cleanups in
> > > separate commits (if there's still any).
> > 
> > If you don't mind I'll do the renames as a separate commit since
> > that's much easier to verify/review.
> 
> Sure, make sense to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eryu
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html