From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 qB3IsGfu246092 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:54:16 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CZmuZyXIbgryaz7M for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:56:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50BCF5DE.8010301@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:56:30 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used References: <50B7B0AB.6040406@redhat.com> <20121130160616.GD5667@infradead.org> <50B8DA0E.4000605@redhat.com> <20121130222750.GC12955@dastard> <50B9335B.3000105@redhat.com> <20121203140344.GA3546@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20121203140344.GA3546@andromeda.usersys.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: Carlos Maiolino Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-oss 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