Le Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:49:41 -0600
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to remove the parts about repairing the
> > filesystem in the documentation? The man page states that it *can't*
> > repair the filesystem, but nonetheless explains under which
> > circumstances it *won't* be able to repair (in some theoretical
> > future version with repair capabilities, I suppose). Ditto with the
> > -n and -y option, I suppose they're both basically noop at the
> > moment? That's quite unclear what it actually does.
>
> I'll take another look at the manpage. The userspace tool today /can/
> do some degree of optimization or repair if the kernel supports it,
> so I was reluctant to suggest removing all such language.
>
> So, "-n" is not a no-op, it's a check-only ("scrub") pass vs. the
> default no-argument action of "optimizing," or the extra -y action
> which would repair. If that's not all clear, I'd appreciate
> suggestions to clean it up.
>
Now I'm wondering: is the default option of "optimizing" really
useful? Wouldn't it be better to simply have a check-only (-n) version,
and a full-fledged version when given no argument?
Or maybe do a simple optimisation, optionally, when given the '-y' (or
some other flag) option?
I say that after having a look at man pages from some comparable
utilities, namely xfs_repair, btrfs_scrub and "zpool scrub", who all
default to "full operation" without options.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique
| Intellique
| <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpJ28WaE_PjS.pgp
Description: Signature digitale OpenPGP
