Hi, On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 02:36 +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > Hi, > On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:13:01 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch set adds skeleton of fsck.nilfs2 utility into nilfs-utils package. Currently, fsck.nilfs2 only try to check presence of primary and secondary superblocks. It checks magic signature in superblock. > > > > With the best regards, > > Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > > I'm planning to look this patchset weekend. Ok. I see. > > One question is about your plan for proceeding this task. > > Implementing fsck looks a tough task since NILFS has history of data > and meta-data as well as the current file system structures, and correcting > filesystem looks to need log write in user-land, which is not yet realized. > I hope that I clear understand possible long duration and complexity of this task. Currently, it is not so easy to predict duration of this task. But, from my point of view, fsck is a key point of NILFS today and it needs to implement it anyway. > So, taking a step-by-step approach seems essential. > I agree with you. I am thinking about step-by-step approach also. And skeleton of fsck is a preparatory step. > In this sense, did you design the skelton, thinking of further steps? > If you have some strategy to accomplish this task, I'd like to hear > that. > Yes, you are right. I have some strategy in my mind. First of all, I think that implementation can be divided into two big steps: 1. Implementation fsck's checking functionality. 2. Implementation fsck's recovering functionality. Currently, all my efforts is in direction of implementation fsck's checking functionality. I think that next immediate step should be preliminary definition of fsck's architecture, a strategy of fsck's checking algorithm, discussion of it and declaration of functions' stub in code. I am going to elaborate more clear preliminary vision of fsck's checking functionality during next two weeks (maybe earlier :-)). But, currently and preliminary, I am thinking about several phases (passes) of check: 1. Check superblocks. 2. Check correctness of metadata in logs. 3. Check correctness of metadata files' contents for segments. 4. Check consistency of file system hierarchy. This is a really raw and preliminary vision. I feel real necessity to think more deeply about it. And elaboration of such more clear vision is my current implementation activities. I am going to elaborate the vision during implementation of superblocks checking functionality. With the best regards, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > My concern for this is avoiding rework of the future. > > I'm very thankful for your challenges. > > With regards, > Ryusuke Konishi > > > -- > > configure.ac | 3 ++- > > sbin/Makefile.am | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > sbin/fsck/Makefile.am | 13 ++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_messages.c | 254 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_messages.def | 62 ++++++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_messages.h | 110 +++++++++++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_nilfs2.c | 379 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_nilfs2.h | 37 ++++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_raw_ops.c | 413 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > sbin/fsck/fsck_raw_ops.h | 46 +++++ > > sbin/fsck/nilfs_superblock.c | 445 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > sbin/fsck/nilfs_superblock.h | 48 +++++ > > 10 files changed, 1807 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
