| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check. |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:32:07 -0600 |
| Cc: | Richard Scobie <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20111122002306.GI2386@dastard> |
| References: | <4ECAC84C.1070000@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20111122002306.GI2386@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 |
On 11/21/11 6:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:16AM +1300, Richard Scobie wrote: >> Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used >> in preference to xfs_repair? >> >> If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated. > > xfs_check is one of the ways we test that xfs_repair is doing the > right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare > results is a good thing..... What about for end users though? I'm not sure there's much need for end users to be comparing xfs_check against xfs_repair in general, anyway ... Often enough I see users using xfs_check just because it's there, and running into trouble... it seems reasonable to warn the casual user against it, or at least recommend xfs_repair -n instead. What do you think? -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Get your Guaranteed $8,736 Commissions Direct Paypal!!!, support |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: inode64 readiness testing, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check., Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check., Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |