xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used in preference to xfs_repair?
If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated.
Regards,
Richard
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Scobie
Is there currently now any situation where
xfs_checkwould be used in preference toxfs_repair?If not, perhaps
xfs_checkcould be deprecated.
There was a such idea but:
21:25 < sandeen_> well, it has a lot of use in xfstests, so it's nice to have built & around, I think.
Signature · 7 lines
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz PLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.pl http://ftp.pld-linux.org/ _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Scobie
Is there currently now any situation where
xfs_checkwould be used in preference toxfs_repair?If not, perhaps
xfs_checkcould be deprecated.
xfs_check is one of the ways we test that xfs_repair is doing the right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare results is a good thing.....
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 7 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 9 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Scobie
Is there currently now any situation where
xfs_checkwould be used in preference toxfs_repair?If not, perhaps
xfs_checkcould be deprecated.
xfs_checkis one of the ways we test thatxfs_repairis doing the right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare results is a good thing.....
What about for end users though? I'm not sure there's much need for end users to be comparing xfs_check against xfs_repair in general, anyway ...
Often enough I see users using xfs_check just because it's there, and running into trouble... it seems reasonable to warn the casual user against it, or at least recommend xfs_repair -n instead. What do you think?
-Eric
Quoted 3 lines
Cheers,
Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Scobie
Is there currently now any situation where
xfs_checkwould be used in preference toxfs_repair?If not, perhaps
xfs_checkcould be deprecated.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
xfs_checkis one of the ways we test thatxfs_repairis doing the right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare results is a good thing.....What about for end users though? I'm not sure there's much need for end users to be comparing
xfs_checkagainstxfs_repairin general, anyway ...
Right, but that doesn't mean it needs deprecating as that implies complete removal at some point in the future. I'd prefer to keep it around as we get most of what it does for free as it uses the xfs_db infrastructure to do all it's work.
Quoted 4 lines
Often enough I see users using
xfs_checkjust because it's there, and running into trouble... it seems reasonable to warn the casual user against it, or at least recommendxfs_repair-n instead. What do you think?
The patch to modify the man page to advise use of xfs_repair is sufficient, I think.
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 7 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs