On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:57:59AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/13/16 11:32 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:54:36PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > >> The man 8 xfs_repair said "xfs_repair run without the -n option will > >> always return a status code of 0". That's not correct. > >> > >> xfs_repair will return 2 if it finds a fs log which needs to be > >> replayed or cleared, 1 if runtime error is encountered, and 0 for > >> all other cases. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> V2 patch did below things: > >> - change the description for xfs_repair > >> - remove the description for "xfs_repair -L" > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zorro > >> > >> man/man8/xfs_repair.8 | 7 ++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/man/man8/xfs_repair.8 b/man/man8/xfs_repair.8 > >> index 1b4d9e3..e45fd90 100644 > >> --- a/man/man8/xfs_repair.8 > >> +++ b/man/man8/xfs_repair.8 > >> @@ -504,12 +504,17 @@ that is known to be free. The entry is therefore invalid and is deleted. > >> This message refers to a large directory. > >> If the directory were small, the message would read "junking entry ...". > >> .SH EXIT STATUS > >> +.TP > >> .B xfs_repair \-n > >> (no modify node) > >> will return a status of 1 if filesystem corruption was detected and > >> 0 if no filesystem corruption was detected. > >> +.TP > >> .B xfs_repair > >> -run without the \-n option will always return a status code of 0. > >> +run without the \-n option will return a status code of 2 if it finds a > >> +filesystem log which needs to be replayed(by a mount/umount cycle) or > >> +cleared(by -L option), 1 if a runtime error is encountered, and 0 in all > >> +other cases, whether or not filesystem corruption was detected. > > > > So... I'd rather the documentation about the return code reflect the > > status of the filesystem -- 2 means "unclean log, replay it or zap it", > > 1 means "errors encountered, fs may not be correct", and 0 /should/ mean > > "fs is correct". > > > > OTOH I don't know for sure that xfs_repair always cleans up the fs on > > the first try. > > That's certainly the intent; I can't imagine a manpage documenting > return codes qualified with "... unless bugs happen." :) Right - if we hit bugs, all bets are off. But otherwise, the fs should be repaired and clean after a single pass. > > ISTR > > asking Dave about this, and I think he said that the FS should be clean > > if repair returns 0. But I'll let him reiterate that if it's true; > > don't trust my crummy memory, that's why I have filesystems. ;) > > Did you have an alternate wording in mind? Yup, 0 = " fs is clean", 1 = "fs is still b0rken", 2 = "couldn't run for whatever reason given" Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
