From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Richard Scobie <richard@sauce.co.nz>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:27:51 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111122052751.GM2386@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ECB25C7.8070801@sandeen.net>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:32:07PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/21/11 6:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > 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.....
>
> What about for end users though? I'm not sure there's much need
> for end users to be comparing xfs_check against xfs_repair in general,
> anyway ...
Right, but that doesn't mean it needs deprecating as that implies
complete removal at some point in the future. I'd prefer to keep it
around as we get most of what it does for free as it uses the xfs_db
infrastructure to do all it's work.
> Often enough I see users using xfs_check just because it's there,
> and running into trouble... it seems reasonable to warn the
> casual user against it, or at least recommend xfs_repair -n
> instead. What do you think?
The patch to modify the man page to advise use of xfs_repair is
sufficient, I think.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-22 5:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-21 21:53 [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check Richard Scobie
2011-11-21 22:37 ` Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
2011-11-22 0:23 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-22 4:32 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-22 5:27 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-21 20:49 Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
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=20111122052751.GM2386@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=richard@sauce.co.nz \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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