From: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Inconsistent consistency checkers
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:16:19 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <778473364.633771246371379556.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1212595845.633651246371270160.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
Hi linux-fsdevel,
The rc.sysinit script used on many distros calls fsck specifying
the "-a" option for the root file system and file systems specified
to be checked in fstab. According to the fsck man page, -a is to
"Automatically repair the file system without any questions". This
-a parameter is passed on to the appropriate fsck.XXXX program.
The problem is, the various fsck programs are inconsistent in how
they interpret the -a parameter. Here's a sampling (in alphabetical
order):
btrfsck - Rejects -a and -p (no ancillary command line args).
fsck.ext2 - Accepts -a but translates it into -p. Use of -a
is discouraged. The man page says "It is provided
for backwards compatibility only; it is suggested
that people use -p option whenever possible."
fsck.ext3 - Same as ext2
fsck.ext4 - Same as ext3
fsck.gfs2 - Rejects both -a and -p.
fsck.hfs - Rejects -a, but accepts -p.
fsck.jfs - Accepts -a and -p.
fsck.minix - Accepts -a but rejects -p.
fsck.ocfs2 - Rejects both -a and -p.
fsck.reiserfs - Accepts -a and -p.
fsck.vfat - Accepts -a but rejects -p.
fsck.xfs - Is completely a no-op with a good return code, the
theory being that its journal recovery should make
the fs sane. If you REALLY want to check or repair
your xfs file system, you need to run xfs_check or
xfs_repair.
(I'm going by the man pages for the most part here, so some of them
may accept -a or -p and just not have them documented.)
I'd like to see consistency in the various fscks regarding -a and -p,
especially in the light of how rc.sysinit specifies it.
If -a is the accepted "Do what repairs you can safely" then its use
should not be discouraged by the fsck.ext* man pages and all fscks
should accept the -a parameter and interpret it the same way.
If, on the other hand, -a is being phased out in favor of -p, then all
fscks should accept -p and rc.sysinit should be changed.
If the checkers should accept both -a and -p, then the fscks that
currently reject either should be changed and possibly map them to
whatever makes the most sense.
Opinions? How do people feel about this? Can we standardize?
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
next parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-30 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1212595845.633651246371270160.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
2009-06-30 14:16 ` Bob Peterson [this message]
2009-06-30 21:26 ` Inconsistent consistency checkers Andreas Dilger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=778473364.633771246371379556.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com \
--to=rpeterso@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).