On 2/27/17 12:26 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:16:36AM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 09:49:17PM +0100, Marcel Partap wrote: >>> Dear XFS dev crew, >>>> fsck.xfs(8) >>>> fsck.xfs - do nothing, successfully >>>> If you wish to check the consistency of an XFS filesystem, or repair a damaged or corrupt XFS filesystem, see xfs_repair(8). >>> >>> So there's a FS check command that does not work as with all the other >>> filesystems. Instead of checking the FS, it tells you to use xfs_repair >>> both for - XFS repair.. and XFS check. Whereas in the man page of >>>> xfs_repair - repair an XFS filesystem >>> it doesn't tell you right at the top that xfs_repair can check XFS. Instead >>>> * -n No modify mode. Specifies that xfs_repair should […] *scan the filesystem* >> >> Xfs used to have two different tools for that. xfs_check and xfs_repair. This >> required one more tool, several more lines of code to be maintained, while >> xfs_repair does the check job with '-n' option, so, it was decided to deprecate >> xfs_check and keep efforts only in xfs_repair. > > A symlink to xfs_check and a check for the alias would have sufficed to keep the > old interface while sharing code. That can be considered should folks agree this > desirable and should be a few lines of code. Actually, it was deprecated because it doesn't scale on large filesystems. I think I'm losing the thread here. What's the problem with how things are today? :) -Eric > Luis > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" 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-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
