[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used

To: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fsck scratch device if it got used
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:56:30 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20121203140344.GA3546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <50B7B0AB.6040406@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121130160616.GD5667@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50B8DA0E.4000605@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121130222750.GC12955@dastard> <50B9335B.3000105@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121203140344.GA3546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On 12/3/12 8:03 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>>>> This one looks good.
>>>> Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit
>>>> _check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to
>>>> try to speed things up.
>>> *nod*
>> I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very
>> many TBH.
>>>>>> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck doesn't
>>>>>> complain.
>>>>> This one I can't make any sense of.  Care to send it separately
>>>>> with a good explanation?
>>>> Ok, sure.
>>>> Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck
>>>> thinks that a missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a
>>>> failure exit code, which then stops the tests :(
>>> Shouldn't e2fsck be fixed? i.e. if you have a corrupted filesystem
>>> and it's missing lost+found, how are you expected to create it? by
>>> mounting your corrupted filesystem and modifying it and potentially
>>> making the corruption worse?
>> No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition
>> even if nothing else is found.
> I know lots of users who use to just delete lost+found directory, so making 
> the
> lack of l+f an error is wrong.
> IMHO, there is no reason to report an error when a l+f is not found, unless 
> you
> need to recover orphan'ed inodes, I've never seen any other usage for it, 
> unless
> during FS recovery time. (maybe I lack some knowledge of another usages for
> lost+found directory?)
> So, I believe that might be useful to print a warning about it, but consider 
> it
> as an error is wrong IMHO.

I agree, maybe we can change that in e2fsck, and not bother creating it
unless some other error means we need it.


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