[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH 2/2] NEW API: new api e2fsck-fy for resize2fs



On 01/13/2012 09:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 07:09:38PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>> On 01/13/2012 06:12 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 02:27:50PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>>>> Add a new api e2fsck-fy for resize2fs.
>>>> Sometimes e2fsck-f is not enough.
>>>>
>>>> If resiz2fs return the message says: " Please use e2fsck-fy first",
>>>> we just haven't such a command, it's so awkward.
>>>
>>> Since we are going to rewrite the error message, can we change it to
>>> say "use e2fsck-f first"?
>>
>>
>> Yes, normally it will say "use e2fsck-f", but after use e2fsck-f, then
>> resize2fs still fails, it'll say "use e2fsck-fy".
>>
>>>
>>> It's not really clear to me what the difference is between
>>> 'e2fsck -p -f' (which is what we use for the 'e2fsck-f' command) and
>>> 'e2fsck -y -f'.
>>
>>
>> "-p" : correct the errors which is not dangerous, but say "n" to some "may be dangerous"
>> 	ones.
>> "-y" : always say "y" to try to fix the errors whether it is safe or not.
>> 	so, when using "-y", you should know what are you doing now.
> 
> I see.
> 
> How about designing a new API called "e2fsck" which has optional
> arguments:
> 
>   OBool "correct" (* same as "-p" *);
>   OBool "forceall" (* same as "-y" *)
> 
> The advantage of the new API is that we can extend it in future.
> 
> That would change the first patch: Instead of rewriting the error
> message, just replace it, eg something like this:
> 
>   if (strstr (err, "e2fsck -f")) {
>     free (err);
>     reply_with_error ("you need to run e2fsck with the correct and/or forceall options first");
>   } else {
>     reply_with_error ("%s", err);
>   }


yeah, it's better, will do like this.

Thanks Rich
-Wanlong Gao

> 
> Rich.
> 



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]