Re: [PATCH 0/3] repair btree validation improvements

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

ping?

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:05:03AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This patchset contains some improvements to the allocation btree checking
> in xfs_repair.  Patches 2 / 3 are straight ports of code used for xfs_check
> in xfs_db and bring the level of btree-related checks up to the standard
> of xfs_check, making xfs_repair -n a fully suitable replacement for xfs_check.
> 
> Patch 1 is a bug fixes found while validating the other patches.
> 
> With this code we could in theory start chaning xfs_check to use xfs_repair
> as backend instead of xfs_db, but there are two issues still preventing this
> for now:
> 
>  - xfs_check is supposed to not give any output when a filesystem is clean
>    while xfs_repair is quite noisy
>  - xfs_check has a -s option to only complain about serious structural
>    issues while xfs_repair lacks the infrastructure for it.
>  - xfs_check has -i and -b options to only examine specific blocks or inodes
>    in details, while xfs_repair lacks the infrastructure for this.
> 
> While we could add support for this in xfs_repair I wonder if we should
> just leave xfs_check as-is and instead tie up xfs_repair -n to fsck.xfs
> if used with the -f option or the /forcefsck file.  Most fsck programs
> are a least a bit noisy to we would fit right in and there's not need
> to implement the additional check options.
> 
> We can't really get rid of the check code in xfs_db anyway as it's also
> used for xfs_ncheck and useful db commands like blockuse.  A second codebase
> also provides a useful validation for xfs_repair.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
---end quoted text---

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs