[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_db problem

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_db problem
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:46:09 -0500
Cc: aluno <aluno3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4964BF7E.6060906@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4964BD79.20806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4964BF7E.6060906@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 08:43:10AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The thing is, xfs_db could in theory be used to *fix* the bad magic
> number, so refusing to continue might be a problem.  But perhaps when
> invoked as xfs_admin, it should just bail out.  It would be interesting
> to find where the actual failure is, though...

We have bugzilla open for this, too.  I think it's reasonable to
get a warning, but not the additional problems when calling xfs_db
directly because that's a low-level tool for people that know what
they do.

But when called through wrappers like xfs_admin we should first do
the magic number check.  I think the proper way to implement this
is to add an option to xfs_db to perform the magic number check,
and make sure all the wrapper scripts set it, similar to how they
already use -p <progname>.

Any volunteer to implement this?  It should be fairly simple.

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