On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:25:17PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: > --- a/btrfs.c > +++ b/btrfs.c > @@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ const struct cmd_group btrfs_cmd_group = { > { "device", cmd_device, NULL, &device_cmd_group, 0 }, > { "scrub", cmd_scrub, NULL, &scrub_cmd_group, 0 }, > { "check", cmd_check, cmd_check_usage, NULL, 0 }, > + { "chunk-recover", cmd_chunk_recover, cmd_chunk_recover_usage, > NULL, 0},
Better late than never, though the patches are already in master branch and I am horribly late. I don't like to see this very specific command in the first level of command namespace. In the past we've proposed a group named 'rescue' that would collect functions that are potentially dangerous but perform certain tasks that can make a filesystem usable again. Examples are select-super or zero-log that are now separate utilities. As a related topic, I was thinking about intorducing a separate namespace that would be declared unstable and any feature in development would be free to use it and add/modify/delete commands and params as needed. That way developers can focus on the feature itself and let the user interface polishing for later. And now the name of the namespace: how about _ ? It's short, will never clash with any other command. 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