On 2/28/14, 7:54 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a): >> >> On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabe...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> fsadm failed: 3 >>> >> >>> man fsadm >>> >>> DIAGNOSTICS >>> On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of 2 >>> indicates the operation was interrupted by the user. A >>> status code of 3 indicates the requested check operation could not >>> be performed because the filesystem is mounted and does >>> not support an online fsck(8). A status code of 1 is used for other >>> failures.
Ok, granted, I should have read the fsadm manpage. :) >> Yeah but did fsadm fail? No, as a whole its operation succeeded. >> Can we say fsadm failed to run fsck? I guess that's one way to look >> at it, but then it failed to understand it shouldn't request a >> check operation on XFS in the first place. >> >> Chris Murphy >> > > Current logic of lvm is to call fsadm to check blockdevice (lvm2 knows > nothing about about filesystems). > > fsadm translate this to check xfs - which is not supported by xfs Well, it failed to check it because it is *mounted*, right? It said this: >> fsadm: Skipping filesystem check for device "/dev/mapper/VG-LV" as the >> filesystem is mounted on /mnt >> fsadm failed: 3 extN does the same thing: # e2fsck /dev/sdb3 e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) /dev/sdb3 is mounted. e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting. # xfs_repair /dev/sdc4 xfs_repair: /dev/sdc4 contains a mounted filesystem fatal error -- couldn't initialize XFS library > (I've no idea if there ever be support for this operation) - so fsadm > reports it has failed to do any check. xfs certainly does have check and repair tools - man xfs_repair. You can run it with "-n" if you want check-only. However, I see that (at leat my copy of) fsadm reqiures xfs_check, which has been deprecated upstream in favor of xfs_repair -n. xfs_check doesn't scale, and xfs_repair -n performs the same tasks. > XFS_CHECK=xfs_check so I guess I should file a bug on that. > lvm2 detects through error code 3 that requested operation is not > supported, but considered safe to be ignore and continues. > > Of course fsadm could return 0 - but then it wouldn't be able to > recognize if check really was made or just skipped. > > This message is only shown in verbose mode - and it's mainly for > developer to know what has happened (or actually not happened) Ok, that's fair enough. Thanks, -Eric > > Zdenek > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
