On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Darrick J. Wong
<darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Jan Tulak wrote:
>> +
>> +# get the right return code for fsck
>> +function repair2fsck_code() {
>> + case $1 in
>> + 0) return 0 # everything is ok
>> + ;;
>> + 1) echo "$NAME error: xfs_repair could not fix the filesystem." 1>&2
>> + return 4 # errors left uncorrected
>> + ;;
>> + 2) echo "$NAME error: The filesystem to be checked must not be mounted." 1>&2
>> + return 4 # it should not me mounted during boot, something is wrong
>
> Sorry I missed this on the first go-round, but repair status 2 means the
> log is dirty, so the admin must mount the fs to try to replay the log or
> run xfs_repair -L to dump the log. It does not mean that the fs is
> already mounted.
>
> "$NAME error: The filesystem log is dirty, either mount it to recover
> the log. If that fails, run xfs_repair -L to clear the log."
>
Right, thanks for spotting it. But I wonder if telling the user to
blindly use -L is safe. Maybe something like "run xfs_repair -L (can
be dangerous, refer to manual pages)" would be better.
Jan
--
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
