Theodore, Usecase is simple. User use a -p with -v flag, in this case, -p block any messages on console in case it successfully fixed. It’s OK _without_ -v flag, situation is different with -v flag. In this case, user expect to see mode debug info about check/fix process, and «no messages» in this mode confuse a user, as he think «no messages» == «no bugs fixed», but it’s not a true in common way. >From other side, -p print a messages about fix process, but not for bitmaps, it’s source of additional confuse for the user, as he lack an info about FS changes during e2fsck run. > 29 апр. 2019 г., в 2:38, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> написал(а): > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:09:13PM +0300, Artem Blagodarenko wrote: >> From: Alexey Lyashkov <c17817@xxxxxxxx> >> >> e2fsck don't print a message if 'p' option used and error can be fixed without >> user assistance, but 'v' option asks to be more verbose, so user expect to >> see any output. But not. >> Fix this, by avoid message suppress with verbose option used. >> >> Change-Id: I358e9b04e44dd33fdb124c5663b2df0bf54ce370 >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Lyashkov <c17817@xxxxxxxx> >> Cray-bug-id: LUS-6890 > > I need to understand the use case of what you are trying to do here. > The preen and verbose options were never intended to be mixed and this > patch changes what the verbose flag does at a fairly fundamental > level. I'm not sure the results will be correct and they will almost > certainly be surprising. > > So (a) what is the user trying to do, and (b) what does the user want > to be trying to do? Preen was intended to be used as part of the boot > process, when multiple e2fsck's would be running in parallel, and so > you don't *want* much in the way of verbosity. > > - Ted
