From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C4FC001DB for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:32:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229510AbjHGWcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:32:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59690 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229499AbjHGWcP (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:32:15 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3E7AB3 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43736200C3; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:32:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1691447532; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=I8KuHCQKnqtoei4oL9svPDA5OYUFE3S+Yi2mj4NLwFY=; b=LL61EuO2h5Vqcy+V2ZYYXkPFIOc0A6TxiFd1/nKaP5ckq84VjXrqM1KWoQgEIgugl5Ga2E U7mekrn8qMtHvzVei+tUwzghuAjI6fx+aZhJBcEudykCZn+PQQLK+MuVQlSjrdx3pkR7tP 9GD2FYdowbqBhptTMAMh3mVrH868oes= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1691447532; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=I8KuHCQKnqtoei4oL9svPDA5OYUFE3S+Yi2mj4NLwFY=; b=De09hoC1SO+Eu/Wvx61lW82ZXT1bHKMKu5uimebSUeZlL6EdjQIbblwqbWdsoA7crZFilx uzALHauBrdpLXdCw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09FA913487; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id SR3nAOxw0WRQAQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 07 Aug 2023 22:32:12 +0000 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 00:34:49 +0200 From: David Disseldorp To: Zorro Lang Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linkinjeon@kernel.org, sj1557.seo@samsung.com, "Darrick J. Wong" , Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/rc: drop '-f' parameter from fsck.exfat Message-ID: <20230808003449.760508f1@echidna.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <20230807174835.moxyuvx4mp47pvky@zlang-mailbox> References: <20230807112850.9198-1-ddiss@suse.de> <20230807174835.moxyuvx4mp47pvky@zlang-mailbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org Thanks for the feedback, Zorro... On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 01:48:35 +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 01:28:50PM +0200, David Disseldorp wrote: > > fsck.exfat doesn't support the '-f' flag, so add a special case to > > _repair_test_fs(). > > I'm wondering why _repair_scratch_fs() doesn't have the '-f', but the > _repair_test_fs() has it. Looks like the '-f' option was for extN fs > originally, it's not a fsck common option, but in fsck.ext4. > > So I think the '-f' might not be a necessary option. As _repair_scratch_fs > works without it, can we just remove the '-f' from _repair_test_fs()? The fsck.ext4 usage states: -f Force checking even if filesystem is marked clean As _repair_test_fs() is only called on _check_test_fs() failure, I suppose '-f' removal should be fine. Still, to avoid any behavioural changes I could also just add an explicit ext case with '-f'. There's also a question of what btrfs should do here, as calling the "fsck.btrfs" no-op script following btrfs check failure likely doesn't make much sense. Cheers, David