On 3/6/18 12:53 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:34:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
>> My other quibble is that if (scrub ioctl ran && errors remain) is true only
>> because "-n" was specified, it seems a little odd to instruct the user
>> to run repair, when the errors may remain only because of -n. But that's
>> a separate issue, I guess.
>
> My thought process here is that any time we leave errors behind on the
> filesystem we should advise the caller to run xfs_repair, whether that's
> because the caller told us to fix things and we failed, or because the
> caller trusts xfs_scrub to find the errors but not to fix them and
> therefore ran xfs_scrub -n. Either way you have a broken fs and need to
> repair it.
>
> However, I wonder if you're thinking "the user told (scrub) they didn't
> want to change anything, so why would we advise the user to run a
> (repair) tool that changes things"?
I guess my thinking is that in reality the user has two options and the
tool is issuing a specific instruction to use only one of them. I don't
think we can guess what the user does or doesn't trust.
Perhaps just something along the lines of
if (ctx->need_repair) {
fprintf(stderr, _("%s: Unmount and run xfs_repair.\n"),
ctx->mntpoint);
if (ctx->mode = SCRUB_MODE_DRY_RUN)
fprintf(stderr, _("%s: Or, re-run without '-n'.\n"),
ctx->mntpoint);
}
or whatever ordering/phrasing makes sense?
-Eric
--
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
