From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qB3E1b2f201555 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:01:37 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id n7P0TSwX4m1qsgGB for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:03:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:03:44 -0200 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used Message-ID: <20121203140344.GA3546@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> References: <50B7B0AB.6040406@redhat.com> <20121130160616.GD5667@infradead.org> <50B8DA0E.4000605@redhat.com> <20121130222750.GC12955@dastard> <50B9335B.3000105@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50B9335B.3000105@redhat.com> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-oss > >>> This one looks good. > >> > >> Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit > >> _check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to > >> try to speed things up. > > > > *nod* > > I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very > many TBH. > > >>>> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck doesn't > >>>> complain. > >>> > >>> This one I can't make any sense of. Care to send it separately > >>> with a good explanation? > >>> > >> > >> Ok, sure. > >> > >> Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck > >> thinks that a missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a > >> failure exit code, which then stops the tests :( > > > > Shouldn't e2fsck be fixed? i.e. if you have a corrupted filesystem > > and it's missing lost+found, how are you expected to create it? by > > mounting your corrupted filesystem and modifying it and potentially > > making the corruption worse? > > No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition > even if nothing else is found. > I know lots of users who use to just delete lost+found directory, so making the lack of l+f an error is wrong. IMHO, there is no reason to report an error when a l+f is not found, unless you need to recover orphan'ed inodes, I've never seen any other usage for it, unless during FS recovery time. (maybe I lack some knowledge of another usages for lost+found directory?) So, I believe that might be useful to print a warning about it, but consider it as an error is wrong IMHO. -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs