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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html