On 12/3/12 8:03 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote: >>>>> 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. I agree, maybe we can change that in e2fsck, and not bother creating it unless some other error means we need it. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
