[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_check

To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs_check
From: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:49:46 +1000
In-reply-to: <20080527162605.GA30344@xxxxxx>
Organization: SGI
References: <20080527162605.GA30344@xxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Opera Mail/9.24 (Win32)
On Wed, 28 May 2008 02:26:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:

In the past we had quite a few cases where we told people to run
xfs_repair -n instead of xfs_check.  I think that makes a lot of sense
because xfs_repair -n generally gives output at least as useful as
xfs_check if not more so and also is a lot faster.  Is there any reason
why we shouldn't simply kill xfs_check and replaced it with a wrapper
around xfs_repair?

It's on my "todo" list! Some stuff called case-insensitive support is
delaying work like that :)

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