From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pAM0NAVg028367 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:23:11 -0600 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C12601278EBC for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JZl3dYSPS5rpXvQa for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:23:06 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check. Message-ID: <20111122002306.GI2386@dastard> References: <4ECAC84C.1070000@sauce.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ECAC84C.1070000@sauce.co.nz> 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: Richard Scobie Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:16AM +1300, Richard Scobie wrote: > Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used > in preference to xfs_repair? > > If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated. xfs_check is one of the ways we test that xfs_repair is doing the right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare results is a good thing..... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs