On Monday 12 January 2015 09:37:36 Hu Tao wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:25:50PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> In data venerdì 26 dicembre 2014 16:17:46, Hu Tao ha scritto:
> > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hutao(a)cn.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > daemon/btrfs.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > generator/actions.ml | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > src/MAX_PROC_NR | 2 +-
> > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c
> > index 79de539..de20bc3 100644
> > --- a/daemon/btrfs.c
> > +++ b/daemon/btrfs.c
> > @@ -1375,3 +1375,27 @@ do_btrfs_scrub (const char *path)
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +int
> > +do_btrfs_check (const char *device)
> > +{
> > + const size_t MAX_ARGS = 64;
> > + const char *argv[MAX_ARGS];
> > + size_t i = 0;
> > + CLEANUP_FREE char *err = NULL;
> > + CLEANUP_FREE char *out = NULL;
> > + int r;
> > +
> > + ADD_ARG (argv, i, str_btrfs);
> > + ADD_ARG (argv, i, "check");
> > + ADD_ARG (argv, i, device);
> > + ADD_ARG (argv, i, NULL);
> > +
> > + r = commandv (&out, &err, argv);
> > + if (r == -1) {
> > + reply_with_error ("%s: %s", device, err);
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> We do have already a "fsck" action; OTOH fsck.btrfs does nothing, so
> I would rather call `btrfs check` there, instead of adding a new
> btrfs-specific API.
> Let's make our fsck useful on btrfs :)
I found btrfs_fsck has been already implemented. Do you mean we should
extend btrfs to support btrfs?
I guess you mean "... extend fsck to support btrfs", right? :)
That could be an idea, but given that "btrfs check" may usually need
additional parameter, then it might not be worth it.
--
Pino Toscano