From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail3.vodafone.ie ([213.233.128.45]:26457 "EHLO mail3.vodafone.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750907Ab2BOQGj (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:06:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3BD80B.7090409@draigBrady.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:06:35 +0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig_Brady?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Mayhar CC: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add functions to the fsck wrapper to improve standalone operation. References: <1328648733.11787.13.camel@peace.lax.corp.google.com> <4F3BBA72.90902@draigBrady.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/15/2012 03:09 PM, Frank Mayhar wrote: > 2012/2/15 Pádraig Brady : >> On 02/07/2012 09:05 PM, Frank Mayhar wrote: >>> This set of patches adds functions that help improve fsck operation in >>> large installations and when running in unattended or headless mode. It >>> adds support for reporting rusage statistics for the individual fsck >>> runs, for capturing fsck output, for killing fsck runs that take too >>> long and for running scripts when each fsck completes. >>> >>> We're currently using these functions to improve our fsck monitoring >>> capability and to replace some unwieldy and hard-to-maintain shell >>> scripts. >> >> Couldn't you do this with separate fsck command runs, >> and use standard system utils? > > Yes, of course. That's where the "unwieldy and hard-to-maintain shell > scripts" came in. Putting the functions in the wrapper itself, on the > other hand, means the scripts don't have to reimplement functions that > already exist there (like parallelizing the fsck runs or tracking exit > status), eliminates some external dependencies and makes the process > quite a bit less fragile. OK, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that these functions are supported by quite simple shell scripting as I demonstrated. I do agree it's a margin call, but I'd be on the side of not bringing that logic within fsck. cheers, Pádraig.