* [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
@ 2013-04-17 16:38 Chandra Seetharaman
2013-04-17 16:58 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2013-04-17 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: XFS mailing list
Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check
is planned to be depracated.
Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
---
diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
index bf62996..dfbb5c2 100644
--- a/common/config
+++ b/common/config
@@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ export DF_PROG="`set_prog_path df`"
export XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_logprint`"
export XFS_REPAIR_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_repair`"
-export XFS_CHECK_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_check`"
export XFS_DB_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_db`"
export XFS_GROWFS_PROG=`set_prog_path xfs_growfs`
export XFS_IO_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_io`"
diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
index 09fb83f..32a852f 100644
--- a/common/rc
+++ b/common/rc
@@ -166,7 +166,6 @@ case "$FSTYP" in
xfs)
[ "$XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_logprint not found"
[ "$XFS_REPAIR_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_repair not found"
- [ "$XFS_CHECK_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_check not found"
[ "$XFS_DB_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_db not found"
[ "$MKFS_XFS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs_xfs not found"
;;
@@ -589,7 +588,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_check()
SCRATCH_OPTIONS="-l $SCRATCH_LOGDEV"
[ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = yes ] && \
SCRATCH_OPTIONS=$SCRATCH_OPTIONS" -t"
- $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV
+ $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV &>/dev/null
}
_scratch_xfs_repair()
@@ -1422,25 +1421,6 @@ _check_xfs_filesystem()
ok=0
fi
- # xfs_check runs out of memory on large files, so even providing the test
- # option (-t) to avoid indexing the free space trees doesn't make it pass on
- # large filesystems. Avoid it.
- if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" != yes ]; then
- $XFS_CHECK_PROG $extra_log_options $device 2>&1 |\
- _fix_malloc >$tmp.fs_check
- fi
- if [ -s $tmp.fs_check ]
- then
- echo "_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on $device is inconsistent (c) (see $seqres.full)"
-
- echo "_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on $device is inconsistent" >>$seqres.full
- echo "*** xfs_check output ***" >>$seqres.full
- cat $tmp.fs_check >>$seqres.full
- echo "*** end xfs_check output" >>$seqres.full
-
- ok=0
- fi
-
$XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $extra_log_options $extra_rt_options $device >$tmp.repair 2>&1
if [ $? -ne 0 ]
then
diff --git a/crash/xfscrash b/crash/xfscrash
index 7831d7e..6437d54 100755
--- a/crash/xfscrash
+++ b/crash/xfscrash
@@ -119,12 +119,11 @@ _check()
if [ $expect -eq 0 ]
then
- _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
- xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out || fail=1
- [ -s /tmp/xfs_check_clean.out ] && fail=1
+ _echo " *** Running xfs_repair -n ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
+ xfs_repair -n $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out && fail=1
else
- _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
- xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
+ _echo " *** Running xfs_repair -n ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
+ xfs_repair -n $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
fi
if [ $fail -eq 0 -a $expect -eq 0 ]
diff --git a/tests/xfs/017 b/tests/xfs/017
index 9fc16c2..03f907e 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/017
+++ b/tests/xfs/017
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ do
echo "*** XFS_CHECK ***" >>$seqres.full
echo "" >>$seqres.full
_scratch_xfs_check >>$seqres.full 2>&1 \
- || _fail "xfs_check failed"
+ || _fail "xfs check failed"
_scratch_mount -o remount,rw \
|| _fail "remount rw failed"
done
diff --git a/tests/xfs/085 b/tests/xfs/085
index 27f29a3..02c6703 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/085
+++ b/tests/xfs/085
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _print_logstate
# curious if FS consistent at start
if false; then
- if $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_DEV; then
+ if $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $SCRATCH_DEV &>/dev/null; then
echo "*** checked ok ***"
fi
fi
diff --git a/tests/xfs/291 b/tests/xfs/291
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
index f842679..dc3c342
--- a/tests/xfs/291
+++ b/tests/xfs/291
@@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ for I in `seq 1 2 5000`; do
done
_scratch_unmount
-# Can xfs_repair and xfs_check cope with this monster?
+# Can xfs_repair and check cope with this monster?
_scratch_xfs_repair >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair failed"
-xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed"
+xfs_repair -n $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair -n failed"
# Yes they can! Now...
# Can xfs_metadump cope with this monster?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
2013-04-17 16:38 [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n Chandra Seetharaman
@ 2013-04-17 16:58 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-04-17 18:03 ` Chandra Seetharaman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-04-17 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sekharan; +Cc: XFS mailing list
On 4/17/13 9:38 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check
> is planned to be depracated.
Hm, I thought the plan was to keep xfs_check around for xfstests
use, for now; as Dave said in the earlier thread:
> xfstests also still needs to run xfs_check. That means we also need
> either an override flag an make $XFS_CHECK_PROG have it set
> appropriately or add an internal xfs_db wrapper that runs the
> xfs_check functionality appropriately. The second is probably the
> better option...
but that's not what this patch does...
-Eric
> Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
> index bf62996..dfbb5c2 100644
> --- a/common/config
> +++ b/common/config
> @@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ export DF_PROG="`set_prog_path df`"
>
> export XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_logprint`"
> export XFS_REPAIR_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_repair`"
> -export XFS_CHECK_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_check`"
> export XFS_DB_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_db`"
> export XFS_GROWFS_PROG=`set_prog_path xfs_growfs`
> export XFS_IO_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_io`"
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index 09fb83f..32a852f 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -166,7 +166,6 @@ case "$FSTYP" in
> xfs)
> [ "$XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_logprint not found"
> [ "$XFS_REPAIR_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_repair not found"
> - [ "$XFS_CHECK_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_check not found"
> [ "$XFS_DB_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_db not found"
> [ "$MKFS_XFS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs_xfs not found"
> ;;
> @@ -589,7 +588,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_check()
> SCRATCH_OPTIONS="-l $SCRATCH_LOGDEV"
> [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = yes ] && \
> SCRATCH_OPTIONS=$SCRATCH_OPTIONS" -t"
> - $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV
> + $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV &>/dev/null
> }
>
> _scratch_xfs_repair()
> @@ -1422,25 +1421,6 @@ _check_xfs_filesystem()
> ok=0
> fi
>
> - # xfs_check runs out of memory on large files, so even providing the test
> - # option (-t) to avoid indexing the free space trees doesn't make it pass on
> - # large filesystems. Avoid it.
> - if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" != yes ]; then
> - $XFS_CHECK_PROG $extra_log_options $device 2>&1 |\
> - _fix_malloc >$tmp.fs_check
> - fi
> - if [ -s $tmp.fs_check ]
> - then
> - echo "_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on $device is inconsistent (c) (see $seqres.full)"
> -
> - echo "_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on $device is inconsistent" >>$seqres.full
> - echo "*** xfs_check output ***" >>$seqres.full
> - cat $tmp.fs_check >>$seqres.full
> - echo "*** end xfs_check output" >>$seqres.full
> -
> - ok=0
> - fi
> -
> $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $extra_log_options $extra_rt_options $device >$tmp.repair 2>&1
> if [ $? -ne 0 ]
> then
> diff --git a/crash/xfscrash b/crash/xfscrash
> index 7831d7e..6437d54 100755
> --- a/crash/xfscrash
> +++ b/crash/xfscrash
> @@ -119,12 +119,11 @@ _check()
>
> if [ $expect -eq 0 ]
> then
> - _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
> - xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out || fail=1
> - [ -s /tmp/xfs_check_clean.out ] && fail=1
> + _echo " *** Running xfs_repair -n ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
> + xfs_repair -n $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out && fail=1
> else
> - _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
> - xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
> + _echo " *** Running xfs_repair -n ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
> + xfs_repair -n $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
> fi
>
> if [ $fail -eq 0 -a $expect -eq 0 ]
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/017 b/tests/xfs/017
> index 9fc16c2..03f907e 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/017
> +++ b/tests/xfs/017
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ do
> echo "*** XFS_CHECK ***" >>$seqres.full
> echo "" >>$seqres.full
> _scratch_xfs_check >>$seqres.full 2>&1 \
> - || _fail "xfs_check failed"
> + || _fail "xfs check failed"
> _scratch_mount -o remount,rw \
> || _fail "remount rw failed"
> done
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/085 b/tests/xfs/085
> index 27f29a3..02c6703 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/085
> +++ b/tests/xfs/085
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _print_logstate
>
> # curious if FS consistent at start
> if false; then
> - if $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_DEV; then
> + if $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $SCRATCH_DEV &>/dev/null; then
> echo "*** checked ok ***"
> fi
> fi
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/291 b/tests/xfs/291
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index f842679..dc3c342
> --- a/tests/xfs/291
> +++ b/tests/xfs/291
> @@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ for I in `seq 1 2 5000`; do
> done
>
> _scratch_unmount
> -# Can xfs_repair and xfs_check cope with this monster?
> +# Can xfs_repair and check cope with this monster?
> _scratch_xfs_repair >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair failed"
> -xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed"
> +xfs_repair -n $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair -n failed"
>
> # Yes they can! Now...
> # Can xfs_metadump cope with this monster?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
2013-04-17 16:58 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2013-04-17 18:03 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2013-04-17 18:23 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2013-04-17 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: XFS mailing list
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the quick feedback.
On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/17/13 9:38 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check
> > is planned to be depracated.
>
> Hm, I thought the plan was to keep xfs_check around for xfstests
I didn't think the plan was to keep xfs_check, may be I misunderstood.
My understanding was that we wanted to deprecate xfs_check, but first we
have to make xfstests not use xfs_check.
> use, for now; as Dave said in the earlier thread:
>
> > xfstests also still needs to run xfs_check. That means we also need
> > either an override flag an make $XFS_CHECK_PROG have it set
> > appropriately or add an internal xfs_db wrapper that runs the
> > xfs_check functionality appropriately. The second is probably the
> > better option...
>
> but that's not what this patch does...
The usages of xfs_check in xfstests looked simple and straight forward.
Besides, I thought we should do what we suggest our users to do :),
hence replaced xfs_check with "xfs_repair -n".
Does this patch break something or technically incorrect ?
Do you think I should instead use
xfs_db -F -i -p xfs_check -c "check" <dev>
Please advise.
Chandra
> -Eric
>
> > Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
> > index bf62996..dfbb5c2 100644
> > --- a/common/config
> > +++ b/common/config
> > @@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ export DF_PROG="`set_prog_path df`"
> >
> > export XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_logprint`"
> > export XFS_REPAIR_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_repair`"
> > -export XFS_CHECK_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_check`"
> > export XFS_DB_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_db`"
> > export XFS_GROWFS_PROG=`set_prog_path xfs_growfs`
> > export XFS_IO_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_io`"
> > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> > index 09fb83f..32a852f 100644
> > --- a/common/rc
> > +++ b/common/rc
> > @@ -166,7 +166,6 @@ case "$FSTYP" in
> > xfs)
> > [ "$XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_logprint not found"
> > [ "$XFS_REPAIR_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_repair not found"
> > - [ "$XFS_CHECK_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_check not found"
> > [ "$XFS_DB_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_db not found"
> > [ "$MKFS_XFS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs_xfs not found"
> > ;;
> > @@ -589,7 +588,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_check()
> > SCRATCH_OPTIONS="-l $SCRATCH_LOGDEV"
> > [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = yes ] && \
> > SCRATCH_OPTIONS=$SCRATCH_OPTIONS" -t"
> > - $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV
> > + $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV &>/dev/null
> > }
> >
> > _scratch_xfs_repair()
> > @@ -1422,25 +1421,6 @@ _check_xfs_filesystem()
> > ok=0
> > fi
> >
> > - # xfs_check runs out of memory on large files, so even providing the test
> > - # option (-t) to avoid indexing the free space trees doesn't make it pass on
> > - # large filesystems. Avoid it.
> > - if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" != yes ]; then
> > - $XFS_CHECK_PROG $extra_log_options $device 2>&1 |\
> > - _fix_malloc >$tmp.fs_check
> > - fi
> > - if [ -s $tmp.fs_check ]
> > - then
> > - echo "_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on $device is inconsistent (c) (see $seqres.full)"
> > -
> > - echo "_check_xfs_filesystem: filesystem on $device is inconsistent" >>$seqres.full
> > - echo "*** xfs_check output ***" >>$seqres.full
> > - cat $tmp.fs_check >>$seqres.full
> > - echo "*** end xfs_check output" >>$seqres.full
> > -
> > - ok=0
> > - fi
> > -
> > $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $extra_log_options $extra_rt_options $device >$tmp.repair 2>&1
> > if [ $? -ne 0 ]
> > then
> > diff --git a/crash/xfscrash b/crash/xfscrash
> > index 7831d7e..6437d54 100755
> > --- a/crash/xfscrash
> > +++ b/crash/xfscrash
> > @@ -119,12 +119,11 @@ _check()
> >
> > if [ $expect -eq 0 ]
> > then
> > - _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
> > - xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out || fail=1
> > - [ -s /tmp/xfs_check_clean.out ] && fail=1
> > + _echo " *** Running xfs_repair -n ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
> > + xfs_repair -n $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out && fail=1
> > else
> > - _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
> > - xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
> > + _echo " *** Running xfs_repair -n ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
> > + xfs_repair -n $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
> > fi
> >
> > if [ $fail -eq 0 -a $expect -eq 0 ]
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/017 b/tests/xfs/017
> > index 9fc16c2..03f907e 100755
> > --- a/tests/xfs/017
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/017
> > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ do
> > echo "*** XFS_CHECK ***" >>$seqres.full
> > echo "" >>$seqres.full
> > _scratch_xfs_check >>$seqres.full 2>&1 \
> > - || _fail "xfs_check failed"
> > + || _fail "xfs check failed"
> > _scratch_mount -o remount,rw \
> > || _fail "remount rw failed"
> > done
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/085 b/tests/xfs/085
> > index 27f29a3..02c6703 100755
> > --- a/tests/xfs/085
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/085
> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _print_logstate
> >
> > # curious if FS consistent at start
> > if false; then
> > - if $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_DEV; then
> > + if $XFS_REPAIR_PROG -n $SCRATCH_DEV &>/dev/null; then
> > echo "*** checked ok ***"
> > fi
> > fi
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/291 b/tests/xfs/291
> > old mode 100644
> > new mode 100755
> > index f842679..dc3c342
> > --- a/tests/xfs/291
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/291
> > @@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ for I in `seq 1 2 5000`; do
> > done
> >
> > _scratch_unmount
> > -# Can xfs_repair and xfs_check cope with this monster?
> > +# Can xfs_repair and check cope with this monster?
> > _scratch_xfs_repair >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair failed"
> > -xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed"
> > +xfs_repair -n $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair -n failed"
> >
> > # Yes they can! Now...
> > # Can xfs_metadump cope with this monster?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xfs mailing list
> > xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> >
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
2013-04-17 18:03 ` Chandra Seetharaman
@ 2013-04-17 18:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-04-17 18:32 ` Chandra Seetharaman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-04-17 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sekharan; +Cc: XFS mailing list
On 4/17/13 11:03 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback.
>
> On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 4/17/13 9:38 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
>>> Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check
>>> is planned to be depracated.
>>
>> Hm, I thought the plan was to keep xfs_check around for xfstests
>
> I didn't think the plan was to keep xfs_check, may be I misunderstood.
> My understanding was that we wanted to deprecate xfs_check, but first we
> have to make xfstests not use xfs_check.
>
>> use, for now; as Dave said in the earlier thread:
>>
>>> xfstests also still needs to run xfs_check. That means we also need
>>> either an override flag an make $XFS_CHECK_PROG have it set
>>> appropriately or add an internal xfs_db wrapper that runs the
>>> xfs_check functionality appropriately. The second is probably the
>>> better option...
>>
>> but that's not what this patch does...
>
> The usages of xfs_check in xfstests looked simple and straight forward.
> Besides, I thought we should do what we suggest our users to do :),
> hence replaced xfs_check with "xfs_repair -n".
Dave or others can chime in too, but I think we still want xfs_check
(xfs_db) as a verifier against xfs_repair.
> Does this patch break something or technically incorrect ?
We used to explicitly run both xfs_repair and xfs_check to get two
distinct verification passes; the patch removes part of that, so I'd
say yes, it does "break" things a little.
> Do you think I should instead use
> xfs_db -F -i -p xfs_check -c "check" <dev>
Right, if the xfs_check script itself is going away, I think we still
want to invoke "xfs_check" behavior one way or another in xfstests to
keep current xfs verification levels for now.
Thanks,
-Eric
> Please advise.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
2013-04-17 18:23 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2013-04-17 18:32 ` Chandra Seetharaman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2013-04-17 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: XFS mailing list
On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 11:23 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/17/13 11:03 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Thanks for the quick feedback.
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 4/17/13 9:38 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> >>> Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check
> >>> is planned to be depracated.
> >>
> >> Hm, I thought the plan was to keep xfs_check around for xfstests
> >
> > I didn't think the plan was to keep xfs_check, may be I misunderstood.
> > My understanding was that we wanted to deprecate xfs_check, but first we
> > have to make xfstests not use xfs_check.
> >
> >> use, for now; as Dave said in the earlier thread:
> >>
> >>> xfstests also still needs to run xfs_check. That means we also need
> >>> either an override flag an make $XFS_CHECK_PROG have it set
> >>> appropriately or add an internal xfs_db wrapper that runs the
> >>> xfs_check functionality appropriately. The second is probably the
> >>> better option...
> >>
> >> but that's not what this patch does...
> >
> > The usages of xfs_check in xfstests looked simple and straight forward.
> > Besides, I thought we should do what we suggest our users to do :),
> > hence replaced xfs_check with "xfs_repair -n".
>
> Dave or others can chime in too, but I think we still want xfs_check
> (xfs_db) as a verifier against xfs_repair.
>
> > Does this patch break something or technically incorrect ?
>
> We used to explicitly run both xfs_repair and xfs_check to get two
> distinct verification passes; the patch removes part of that, so I'd
> say yes, it does "break" things a little.
>
> > Do you think I should instead use
> > xfs_db -F -i -p xfs_check -c "check" <dev>
>
> Right, if the xfs_check script itself is going away, I think we still
> want to invoke "xfs_check" behavior one way or another in xfstests to
> keep current xfs verification levels for now.
It is clear now. will make appropriate changes and resubmit.
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
> > Please advise.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-04-17 18:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-04-17 16:38 [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n Chandra Seetharaman
2013-04-17 16:58 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-04-17 18:03 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2013-04-17 18:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-04-17 18:32 ` Chandra Seetharaman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox