From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BF67F4E for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:23:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226C8304064 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id WqT06ggnnAovzL6B for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <516EE8A1.9070703@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:23:29 -0700 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n References: <1366216695.3762.32325.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.com> <516ED4A0.9040706@sandeen.net> <1366221810.3762.32341.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1366221810.3762.32341.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: sekharan@us.ibm.com 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" 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