> >>> This one looks good. > >> > >> Hm now that I think of it perhaps I should remove the explicit > >> _check_scratch-es if they happen at the end of the run, just to > >> try to speed things up. > > > > *nod* > > I'll send as another patch; I don't think there are really very > many TBH. > > >>>> Also recreate lost+found/ in one test so that e2fsck doesn't > >>>> complain. > >>> > >>> This one I can't make any sense of. Care to send it separately > >>> with a good explanation? > >>> > >> > >> Ok, sure. > >> > >> Basically, test does an rm -rf of the scrach mnt, but e2fsck > >> thinks that a missing lost+found/ is cause for complaint and a > >> failure exit code, which then stops the tests :( > > > > Shouldn't e2fsck be fixed? i.e. if you have a corrupted filesystem > > and it's missing lost+found, how are you expected to create it? by > > mounting your corrupted filesystem and modifying it and potentially > > making the corruption worse? > > No, e2fsck fixes it, but reports that as an exit error condition > even if nothing else is found. > I know lots of users who use to just delete lost+found directory, so making the lack of l+f an error is wrong. IMHO, there is no reason to report an error when a l+f is not found, unless you need to recover orphan'ed inodes, I've never seen any other usage for it, unless during FS recovery time. (maybe I lack some knowledge of another usages for lost+found directory?) So, I believe that might be useful to print a warning about it, but consider it as an error is wrong IMHO. -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
