On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 01:48:35AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 01:28:50PM +0200, David Disseldorp wrote: > > fsck.exfat doesn't support the '-f' flag, so add a special case to > > _repair_test_fs(). > > I'm wondering why _repair_scratch_fs() doesn't have the '-f', but the > _repair_test_fs() has it. Looks like the '-f' option was for extN fs > originally, it's not a fsck common option, but in fsck.ext4. > > So I think the '-f' might not be a necessary option. As _repair_scratch_fs > works without it, can we just remove the '-f' from _repair_test_fs()? > > As _repair_test_fs was added by Ted, and _repair_scratch_fs was added > by Darrick, so CC them to get more review -- do we real need the '-f' > or not by default :) I suspect that was just an ext4ism, since fsck itself doesn't document any such option. --D > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > common/rc | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > index 5c4429ed..ac7e50f1 100644 > > --- a/common/rc > > +++ b/common/rc > > @@ -1229,6 +1229,14 @@ _repair_test_fs() > > res=$? > > fi > > ;; > > + exfat) > > + # exfat doesn't support -f > > + fsck -t $FSTYP -y $TEST_DEV >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > > + res=$? > > + if ((res < 4)); then > > + res=0 > > + fi > > + ;; > > *) > > # Let's hope fsck -y suffices... > > fsck -t $FSTYP -fy $TEST_DEV >$tmp.repair 2>&1 > > -- > > 2.35.3 > > >
