| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | xfs_check |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 27 May 2008 18:26:05 +0200 |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
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? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Question for XFS (mounting and clean bit), Andre Nitschke |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs_check, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Question for XFS (mounting and clean bit), Andre Nitschke |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs_check, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |