On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:26:41AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 08:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> >--- a/btrfsck.c
> >+++ b/btrfsck.c
> >@@ -3474,6 +3474,7 @@ static struct option long_options[] = {
> > { "repair", 0, NULL, 0 },
> > { "init-csum-tree", 0, NULL, 0 },
> > { "init-extent-tree", 0, NULL, 0 },
> >+ { "force", 0, NULL, 0 },
>
> If we were to run with this, I think it should be called something other
> than force. fsck.ext* has trained people to think that 'forcing' a fsck
> means doing a full repair pass even if the fs thinks that it was shut
> down cleanly.
Agreed, it's not a good name and was rather a quick aid to myself, I
didn't put much thinking into the user interface as I usually do :)
> --read-only would be good if fsck was taught to not even try to write in
> this mode.
read-only mode is default and (hopefully) does no writes to the device,
this would require the --repair option so what you propose is sort of a
sanity check, right?
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
