On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:54:32PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
>
> Also, the other progress messages go to stderr, so "checking extents"
> probably should, as well.
>
> Fixes: c7a1f66a205f ("btrfs-progs: check: switch some messages to common
> helpers")
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
> ---
> As a side note, it seems almost completely random whether we print to
> stdout or stderr for any given message. That could probably use some
> cleaning up for consistency. A quick run of e2fsck indicated that it
> prints almost everything on stdout except for usage and administrative
> problems. xfs_repair just seems to put everything in stderr. I
> personally like the e2fsck approach. Anyone have any preference?
Cleaning up the messages is ongoing work, most error messages have been
converted. In case of 'check', I think that stdout is good to capture
normal and error messages (so no error messages are accidentally lost if
the user runs just "check > log" instead of "check >& log").
For that printf is still the way to print them. Besides the verbosity
level could be improved, we've had complaints about that since ever.
Patch applied.
--
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
