From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: sekharan@us.ibm.com
Cc: XFS mailing list <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:23:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <516EE8A1.9070703@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1366221810.3762.32341.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-17 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
2013-04-17 18:32 ` Chandra Seetharaman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=516EE8A1.9070703@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox