From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
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
	pALLrLHV023369 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:53:22 -0600
Received: from smtp.sauce.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B85E0162C41B
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.sauce.co.nz (smtp.sauce.co.nz [210.48.49.72]) by
	cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EiTlRO0Tv6PilRIF for
	<xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4ECAC84C.1070000@sauce.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:53:16 +1300
From: Richard Scobie <richard@sauce.co.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com

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.

Regards,

Richard

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs