On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 07:46:05AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> This new case is mostly like the known dirty log case; the log
> is corrupt, dirtiness cannot be determined, and a mount/umount
> cycle or an xfs_repair -L is required.
>
> So exit with status 2 here as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/repair/phase2.c b/repair/phase2.c
> index e21ffa6..5964244 100644
> --- a/repair/phase2.c
> +++ b/repair/phase2.c
> @@ -79,10 +79,11 @@ zero_log(
> _("zero_log: cannot find log head/tail (xlog_find_tail=%d)\n"),
> error);
> if (!no_modify && !zap_log)
> - do_error(_(
> + do_warn(_(
> "ERROR: The log head and/or tail cannot be discovered. Attempt to mount the\n"
> "filesystem to replay the log or use the -L option to destroy the log and\n"
> "attempt a repair.\n"));
> + exit(2);
HaHa, I've talked about this problem with "Xiao Yang" in:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg03888.html
I talked him either change the _repair_scratch_fs function to check return
status 1, or change xfs_repair to make it return status 2. I don't know if
it's necessary to change the xfs_repair exit status. Is there some rules to
document that?
I'm trying to change the xfs_repair manpage:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg42346.html
Would you please help to check that? Any suggestions about that? I need to
change my patch if this patch will be merged.
Thanks,
Zorro
> } else {
> if (verbose) {
> do_warn(
>
> --
> 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
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
