On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 07:43:27AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/9/11 下午10:48, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:41:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> No need to abort checking, especially for RO check free space cache is
> >> meaningless, the errors in fs/extent tree is more interesting for
> >> developers.
> >>
> >> So continue checking even something in free space cache is wrong.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Etienne Champetier <champetier.etienne@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> check/main.c | 1 -
> >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/check/main.c b/check/main.c
> >> index b361cd7e26a0..4f720163221e 100644
> >> --- a/check/main.c
> >> +++ b/check/main.c
> >> @@ -9885,7 +9885,6 @@ int cmd_check(int argc, char **argv)
> >> error("errors found in free space tree");
> >> else
> >> error("errors found in free space cache");
> >
> > Please make it a warning and update the message so it says that it will
> > continue despite the errors found.
>
> I'm fine to add warning, but isn't it the expected behavior?
>
> In fact I'm quite surprised that when we found something wrong we just
> abort checking.
>
> It's never the case for file/extent tree check. We always report all
> errors we found, not only the first error and exit.
You're right, in context of 'check' this is the expected behaviour. So
let's keep error().
