On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 14:20 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > Hi Gui, > > (2014/07/17 11:40), Gui Hecheng wrote: > > The -f option of scrub means to skip checking running scrub, > > not to force checking. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng <guihc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > --- > > Documentation/btrfs-scrub.txt | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs-scrub.txt b/Documentation/btrfs-scrub.txt > > index 7b27d63..1af9b9f 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/btrfs-scrub.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/btrfs-scrub.txt > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ manpage). > > -n <ioprio_classdata>:::: > > Set IO priority classdata (see `ionice`(1) manpage). > > -f:::: > > -force to check whether scrub has started or resumed in userspace. > > +force to skip checking whether scrub has started or resumed in userspace.
Hi Satoru, Thanks for your comments first. My opinions are as follows: > I consider "scrub has started and resumed" is not user-friendly > expression. First, it can be replaced with more easy one, > "scrub is running". Second, there in no explanation about > this checking behavior before "-f" option's description. Yes, "Scrub is running" is more precise. > So, how about the following idea? > > Fix 1. Add "If scrub is already running running, it fails." > to the description before `Options` section This is really a valuable idea. > Fix 2. Replace "force to check ..." with > "force starting new scrub even if scrub is already running." This is more precise. > Fix 3. Fix cmd_scrub_start_usage too. Of course, thanks for reminding me. So please let me rework this patch, could I add your sign-off-by then? Thanks, Gui > > Thanks, > Satoru > > > this is useful when scrub stat record file is damaged. > > > > *cancel* <path>|<device>:: > > > -- 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
