[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Deprecating xfs_check

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Deprecating xfs_check
From: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:14:39 -0500
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1366133266.3762.32211.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1365716708.3762.32154.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130411221754.GI22182@xxxxxxx> <516740B8.4030704@xxxxxxx> <20130412010407.GE31207@dastard> <1366133266.3762.32211.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
On 04/16/2013 12:27 PM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hello All,
> While trying to replace xfs_check with xfs_repair -n in xfstests, I
> found that xfs_check is quiet if all is well, and prints information
> only if something is wrong. But, xfs_repair -n always prints information
> on different phases etc.,
> What should be our approach ?
>  1. add a -q option to xfs_repair, which prints no message at all
>  2. add a -q option, and it will be quiet, but is valid only if -n 
>     is specified.
>  3. Leave it as is. Since users have to change their scripts anyways to 
>     replace xfs_check, they can as well change the logic around the 
>     output.

I like option 1 the best.  But any of them is reasonable.       -Alex

> Please suggest.
> Regards,
> Chandra 

. . .

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