On 4/17/13 11:03 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for the quick feedback. > > On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 4/17/13 9:38 AM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: >>> Replace the usage of "xfs_check" with "xfs_repair -n" as xfs_check >>> is planned to be depracated. >> >> Hm, I thought the plan was to keep xfs_check around for xfstests > > I didn't think the plan was to keep xfs_check, may be I misunderstood. > My understanding was that we wanted to deprecate xfs_check, but first we > have to make xfstests not use xfs_check. > >> use, for now; as Dave said in the earlier thread: >> >>> xfstests also still needs to run xfs_check. That means we also need >>> either an override flag an make $XFS_CHECK_PROG have it set >>> appropriately or add an internal xfs_db wrapper that runs the >>> xfs_check functionality appropriately. The second is probably the >>> better option... >> >> but that's not what this patch does... > > The usages of xfs_check in xfstests looked simple and straight forward. > Besides, I thought we should do what we suggest our users to do :), > hence replaced xfs_check with "xfs_repair -n". Dave or others can chime in too, but I think we still want xfs_check (xfs_db) as a verifier against xfs_repair. > Does this patch break something or technically incorrect ? We used to explicitly run both xfs_repair and xfs_check to get two distinct verification passes; the patch removes part of that, so I'd say yes, it does "break" things a little. > Do you think I should instead use > xfs_db -F -i -p xfs_check -c "check" <dev> Right, if the xfs_check script itself is going away, I think we still want to invoke "xfs_check" behavior one way or another in xfstests to keep current xfs verification levels for now. Thanks, -Eric > Please advise. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
