Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

On 12/3/12 8:03 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>>>> 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.

I agree, maybe we can change that in e2fsck, and not bother creating it
unless some other error means we need it.

-Eric

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