Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: exit with status 2 if log dirtiness is unknown

[Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>]

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@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> 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@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs