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

[Liu Yuan]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 05:06:20PM +0900, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> At Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:53:30 +0800,
> Liu Yuan wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:49:18PM +0900, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> > > At Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:37:44 +0800,
> > > Liu Yuan wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:30:05AM +0200, Valerio Pachera wrote:
> > > > > Sorry guys if I intrude in this list.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my opinion, form user point of view, it would be nice to have a
> > > > > "read only" check that could be run with a running vm.
> > > > > In case problems are reported, then the user could shutdown the guest
> > > > > when he can, and run the check "read write" (auto repair).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Similar to
> > > > > xfs_check -n <device>  (no repair)
> > > > > xfs_check <device> (repair)
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This looks reasonable to me.
> > > 
> > > Does it means that it's okay for you if auto-repar is disabled by
> > > default?  If we have a way to do online check, either is okay to me.
> > 
> > I think default to be disabled (safest option) looks fine to me. Can we simply
> > call it 'repair' instead of 'auto-repair'? I have no clue what 'auto' means when
> > I see it.
> 
> Ah, I may see your point.
> With my patches,
> 
>  - vdi check: shows a confirm message to repair the vdi when an error
>               is found.
>  - vdi check -A: repair the vdi without asking (I said this as a auto-repair)
> 
> but you mean 
> 
>  - vdi check: check only
>  - vdi check -r: check and repiar
> 
> right?

Yes

>
> Then how about creating another command 'vdi repair' to fix the vdi?
> I noticed that xfs has xfs_check and xfs_repair.

vdi check # check only?
vdi repair # check and repair?

But we'll duplicate many advanced commands for check and repair. So I think

vdi check [ -r -o {consistency,inode...} ] as a bundle is better.

Thanks
Yuan