He Guys,
i'm doing some restore right now. In fakt about 8TB.
I saw Justin sending the patch below in 2014 adding the "all" option when
hitting the looping promt.
It would be nice to have this as command switch to, because if you have to
recover the amount of data as i do atm, you probably get hundreds of looping
promts
where you have to inactivly apply the "a" every time. This gets annoying after
a while.
I also saw a similar request by Karl Richter some time ago
(https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg36458.html)
So please for all users that will have similar probs in the future the option
*btrfs restore -a* (or similar).
regads
Sash
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the patch first, comment inlined below.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add always option to restore's looping prompt
From: Justin Maggard <jmaggard10 <at> gmail.com>
To: <linux-btrfs <at> vger.kernel.org>
Date: 2014年07月29日 08:03
> If you are using btrfs restore to try to recover a very large or
> fragmented file, you may encounter __lots__ of prompts requiring
> you to press 'y' to continue because we are looping a lot.
>
> Add the option to press 'a', to supress these prompts for the rest
> of the file.
> ---
> cmds-restore.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cmds-restore.c b/cmds-restore.c
> index 96b97e1..ae95d5a 100644
> --- a/cmds-restore.c
> +++ b/cmds-restore.c
> <at> <at> -410,17 +410,19 <at> <at> static int ask_to_continue(const
> char *file)
> char *ret;
>
> printf("We seem to be looping a lot on %s, do you want to keep going "
> - "on ? (y/N): ", file);
> + "on ? (y/N/a): ", file);
> again:
> ret = fgets(buf, 2, stdin);
> if (*ret == '\n' || tolower(*ret) == 'n')
> - return 1;
> + return 0;
> + if (tolower(*ret) == 'a')
> + return 2;
> if (tolower(*ret) != 'y') {
> printf("Please enter either 'y' or 'n': ");
Since option 'a' is added, it would be better to change the prompt and
add 'a' to it.
> goto again;
> }
>
> - return 0;
> + return 1;
> }
If add any comment or change the return value from immediate number to
more meaningful defined number,
it would be much more easier to understand and expend.
Especially when the return value has difference meaning with original one.
>
>
> <at> <at> -588,11 +590,14 <at> <at> static int copy_file(struct
> btrfs_root *root, int fd, struct btrfs_key *key,
> }
>
> while (1) {
> - if (loops++ >= 1024) {
> + if (loops >= 0 && loops++ >= 1024) {
> ret = ask_to_continue(file);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret == 0)
> break;
> - loops = 0;
> + else if (ret == 1)
> + loops = 0;
> + else if (ret == 2)
> + loops = -1;
> }
> if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf)) {
> do {
Also, just a suggestion and you can ignore it without any problem,
utils.c provide ask_to_continue() function to provide similar behavior,
what about improve the one in utils.c
and reuse the ask_to_continue() function?
Thanks,
Qu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
