On 3/14/18 9:30 AM, Jan Tulak wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:28 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> If it's critical to report whether errors were fixed, it would be >> trivial to add a new option to xfs_repair which causes it to test >> fs_is_dirty for runs without "-n", and exit with a different >> value. > > I have toyed with it a bit and this seems to be the best option. A > flag that changes the exit code on a successful run. Is exit code 3 > ok? According to man page, only 1 and 2 are currently used and the > "everything is ok now, but an issue was there" should not be mixed > with the existing ones. I also thought about a flag that would > change all exit codes to fsck ones, but that seems too complicated > and completely unnecessary. Hm, I guess we'll have to. > [...] always return a status code of 0 if it completes without > problems. If a runtime error is encoun- tered during operation, it > will return a status of 1. In this case, xfs_repair should be > restarted. If xfs_repair is unable to proceed due to a dirty log, it > will return a status of 2. > > As for the flag, how about -e? It is not used yet and it makes some > sense as "e-exit code." sure, sounds fine. -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
