On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:36:51AM +0000, Filipe David Manana wrote: > So another thing I would like to see is doing a more comprehensive > verification that the repair code worked as expected. Currently we > only check that a readonly fsck, after running fsck --repair, returns > 0. > > For the improvements you've been doing, it's equally important to > verify that --repair recovered the inodes, links, etc to the > lost+found directory (or whatever is the directory's name). > > So perhaps adding a verify.sh script to the tarball for example?
A verifier script would be good, but I'd rather not put it into the tarball. We might want to edit it, do cleanups etc, this would require to regenerate the image each time and the changes would be hard to review. We can use the base image name and add -verify.sh suffix instead, eg. 007-bad_root_items_fs_skinny.tar.xz and 007-bad_root_items_fs_skinny-verify.sh -- 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
