[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:32:07 -0600
Cc: Richard Scobie <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20111122002306.GI2386@dastard>
References: <4ECAC84C.1070000@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20111122002306.GI2386@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
On 11/21/11 6:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:16AM +1300, Richard Scobie wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.....

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?


> Cheers,
> Dave.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>