From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id nBNDsVPA239598 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:54:32 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7973E1221FE for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Ar2wFxf0lQ0fgbO6 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1NNRgJ-0007gR-5z for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:15 +0000 Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:55:15 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] repair btree validation improvements Message-ID: <20091223135515.GA29509@infradead.org> References: <20091201150503.958283878@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091201150503.958283878@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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