On 4/17/13 12:17 PM, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Replace the usage of the script xfs_check and add the relevant code to
> xfstests.
>
> This is in preparation of the planned deprecation of xfs_check.
Other than maybe having a comment about why _xfs_check() is embedded
in common/rc for future readers, this looks fine to me, thanks.
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/common/config b/common/config
> index bf62996..dfbb5c2 100644
> --- a/common/config
> +++ b/common/config
> @@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ export DF_PROG="`set_prog_path df`"
>
> export XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_logprint`"
> export XFS_REPAIR_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_repair`"
> -export XFS_CHECK_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_check`"
> export XFS_DB_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_db`"
> export XFS_GROWFS_PROG=`set_prog_path xfs_growfs`
> export XFS_IO_PROG="`set_prog_path xfs_io`"
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index 09fb83f..9cea3f9 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -166,7 +166,6 @@ case "$FSTYP" in
> xfs)
> [ "$XFS_LOGPRINT_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_logprint not found"
> [ "$XFS_REPAIR_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_repair not found"
> - [ "$XFS_CHECK_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_check not found"
> [ "$XFS_DB_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "xfs_db not found"
> [ "$MKFS_XFS_PROG" = "" ] && _fatal "mkfs_xfs not found"
> ;;
> @@ -387,6 +386,31 @@ _scratch_mkfs_xfs()
> return $mkfs_status
> }
>
> +_xfs_check()
> +{
> + OPTS=" "
> + DBOPTS=" "
> +
> + OPTIND=1
> + while getopts "b:fi:l:stvV" c
> + do
> + case $c in
> + s) OPTS=$OPTS"-s ";;
> + t) OPTS=$OPTS"-t ";;
> + v) OPTS=$OPTS"-v ";;
> + i) OPTS=$OPTS"-i "$OPTARG" ";;
> + b) OPTS=$OPTS"-b "$OPTARG" ";;
> + f) DBOPTS=$DBOPTS" -f";;
> + l) DBOPTS=$DBOPTS" -l "$OPTARG" ";;
> + V) $XFS_DB_PROG -p xfs_check -V
> + return $?
> + ;;
> + esac
> + done
> + ${XFS_DB_PROG}${DBOPTS} -F -i -p xfs_check -c "check$OPTS" $1
> + return $?
> +}
> +
> _setup_large_ext4_fs()
> {
> fs_size=$1
> @@ -589,7 +613,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_check()
> SCRATCH_OPTIONS="-l $SCRATCH_LOGDEV"
> [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = yes ] && \
> SCRATCH_OPTIONS=$SCRATCH_OPTIONS" -t"
> - $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV
> + _xfs_check $SCRATCH_OPTIONS $* $SCRATCH_DEV
> }
>
> _scratch_xfs_repair()
> @@ -1426,7 +1450,7 @@ _check_xfs_filesystem()
> # option (-t) to avoid indexing the free space trees doesn't make it pass on
> # large filesystems. Avoid it.
> if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" != yes ]; then
> - $XFS_CHECK_PROG $extra_log_options $device 2>&1 |\
> + _xfs_check $extra_log_options $device 2>&1 |\
> _fix_malloc >$tmp.fs_check
> fi
> if [ -s $tmp.fs_check ]
> diff --git a/crash/xfscrash b/crash/xfscrash
> index 7831d7e..579b724 100755
> --- a/crash/xfscrash
> +++ b/crash/xfscrash
> @@ -120,11 +120,11 @@ _check()
> if [ $expect -eq 0 ]
> then
> _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_clean.out)"
> - xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out || fail=1
> + _xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_clean.out || fail=1
> [ -s /tmp/xfs_check_clean.out ] && fail=1
> else
> _echo " *** xfs_check ($LOG/check_dirty.out)"
> - xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
> + _xfs_check $TEST_DEV &> $LOG/check_dirty.out || fail=1
> fi
>
> if [ $fail -eq 0 -a $expect -eq 0 ]
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/085 b/tests/xfs/085
> index 27f29a3..af71b77 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/085
> +++ b/tests/xfs/085
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _print_logstate
>
> # curious if FS consistent at start
> if false; then
> - if $XFS_CHECK_PROG $SCRATCH_DEV; then
> + if _xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV; then
> echo "*** checked ok ***"
> fi
> fi
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/291 b/tests/xfs/291
> old mode 100644
> new mode 100755
> index f842679..7723b9e
> --- a/tests/xfs/291
> +++ b/tests/xfs/291
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ done
> _scratch_unmount
> # Can xfs_repair and xfs_check cope with this monster?
> _scratch_xfs_repair >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_repair failed"
> -xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed"
> +_xfs_check $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "xfs_check failed"
>
> # Yes they can! Now...
> # Can xfs_metadump cope with this monster?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
