xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:32:48 -0500
Cc: XFS mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <516EE8A1.9070703@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: IBM
References: <1366216695.3762.32325.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <516ED4A0.9040706@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1366221810.3762.32341.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <516EE8A1.9070703@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 11:23 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/17/13 11:03 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > Thanks for the quick feedback.
> > 
> > On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 4/17/13 9:38 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> >>> Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check
> >>> is planned to be depracated.
> >>
> >> Hm, I thought the plan was to keep xfs_check around for xfstests
> > 
> > I didn't think the plan was to keep xfs_check, may be I misunderstood.
> > My understanding was that we wanted to deprecate xfs_check, but first we
> > have to make xfstests not use xfs_check.
> > 
> >> use, for now; as Dave said in the earlier thread:
> >>
> >>> xfstests also still needs to run xfs_check. That means we also need
> >>> either an override flag an make $XFS_CHECK_PROG have it set
> >>> appropriately or add an internal xfs_db wrapper that runs the
> >>> xfs_check functionality appropriately. The second is probably the
> >>> better option...
> >>
> >> but that's not what this patch does...
> > 
> > The usages of xfs_check in xfstests looked simple and straight forward.
> > Besides, I thought we should do what we suggest our users to do :),
> > hence replaced xfs_check with "xfs_repair -n".
> 
> Dave or others can chime in too, but I think we still want xfs_check
> (xfs_db) as a verifier against xfs_repair.
> 
> > Does this patch break something or technically incorrect ?
> 
> We used to explicitly run both xfs_repair and xfs_check to get two
> distinct verification passes; the patch removes part of that, so I'd
> say yes, it does "break" things a little.
> 
> > Do you think I should instead use 
> >     xfs_db -F -i -p xfs_check -c "check" <dev>
> 
> Right, if the xfs_check script itself is going away, I think we still
> want to invoke "xfs_check" behavior one way or another in xfstests to
> keep current xfs verification levels for now.

It is clear now. will make appropriate changes and resubmit.

> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric
> 
> > Please advise.
> 
> 
> 
> 


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