From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:60022 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751624AbeBEWkF (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:40:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:39:59 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: xfs_scrub: call for testing Message-ID: <20180205223959.GJ4849@magnolia> References: <20180205161049.7e22aa09@harpe.intellique.com> <61166e99-1195-1192-d229-f7e01f1d52da@sandeen.net> <20180205180807.261e822f@harpe.intellique.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180205180807.261e822f@harpe.intellique.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Emmanuel Florac Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-xfs On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:08:07PM +0100, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > Le Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:49:41 -0600 > Eric Sandeen écrivait: > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to remove the parts about repairing the > > > filesystem in the documentation? The man page states that it *can't* > > > repair the filesystem, but nonetheless explains under which > > > circumstances it *won't* be able to repair (in some theoretical > > > future version with repair capabilities, I suppose). Ditto with the > > > -n and -y option, I suppose they're both basically noop at the > > > moment? That's quite unclear what it actually does. > > > > I'll take another look at the manpage. The userspace tool today /can/ > > do some degree of optimization or repair if the kernel supports it, > > so I was reluctant to suggest removing all such language. > > > > So, "-n" is not a no-op, it's a check-only ("scrub") pass vs. the > > default no-argument action of "optimizing," or the extra -y action > > which would repair. If that's not all clear, I'd appreciate > > suggestions to clean it up. > > > > Now I'm wondering: is the default option of "optimizing" really > useful? Wouldn't it be better to simply have a check-only (-n) version, > and a full-fledged version when given no argument? > Or maybe do a simple optimisation, optionally, when given the '-y' (or > some other flag) option? > > I say that after having a look at man pages from some comparable > utilities, namely xfs_repair, btrfs_scrub and "zpool scrub", who all > default to "full operation" without options. I don't care /that/ much about what 'zpool scrub' does, but I do see your point that from the admin's perspective either we fix everything or we don't, so there's no need for a -y and we can do what repair does (-n means dry run, lack of -n means fix it). --D > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique > | Intellique > | > | +33 1 78 94 84 02 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------