[sheepdog] [PATCH 4/4] dog: make repairing vdi optional

[Liu Yuan]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:09:45PM +0900, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> At Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:56:39 +0800,
> Liu Yuan wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:01:43PM +0900, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> > > From: MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka at lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > > 
> > > Basically, sheepdog doesn't allow multiple clients against the same
> > > vdi, so consistency repair is not safe when there may be a VM who uses
> > > the image.  This patch makes automatic repair optional to reduce the
> > > risk of corrupting the image, and show confirm message when it is not
> > > specified.
> > 
> > What about I don't specify '-C' but specify '-A' for vdi check? Have option C
> > and A makes 'vdi check' hard to use. I think if user specify '-C', it implies
> > 'yes' to fix any consistency found in the process
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to mixing consistency check and
> auto-repair.  'vdi check' will be complex either way because there
> still remain a lot of things to be added for vdi health checking;
> snapshot relation check, vdi object corruption check, etc.
> Auto-repair should be disable for all of them by default, and it looks
> bad to treat consistency check as a special case.
> 
> If it is not good to have many check options, how about creating
> subcommands for specifying a check type?
> 
> E.g.
> 
>   dog vdi check existence      # existence check
>   dog vdi check consistency    # consistency check
>   dog vdi check relation       # snapshot relation check
>   dog vdi check inode          # inode coruption check
>   dog vdi check all            # full check
> 

Above looks better.

> and '-A' means auto-repair.

I don't understand why we need '-A'. Does it mean 'yes' to all confirm? Do people
in any cases answer no? I think auto-repair isn't necessary. We should repair
the problems we found automatically for easy use.

Thanks
Yuan