Subject: Re: Progress meter for fsck, revisited
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/13/2004 13:29:55
Thus spake Jason Thorpe ("JT> ") sometime Today...
JT> These patches are based on his, but have some changes:
JT> - If -P is specified, then the master fsck process disables
JT> so that the meter output does not interfere with each other.
JT> - For preen, a single overall progress meter is used, rather than
JT> one for each pass.
Don't those two kind of conflict, since -p == (parallel | preen)?
[i.e. I have never seen fsck go parallel without the -p option.]
I would say that you might want to have -P work with parallelisation
such that it only uses one meter.
JT> - The code is sharable by fsck utilities other than fsck_ffs.
This is good...
JT> - The code can be compiled out using -DSMALL.
Hmm, what if one wants the progress meter but not the getpw* and err*
Incidentally, has anyone tried compiling fsck_ffs with -DSMALL? Last
time I did it, it blew up horribly because the stuff in inode.c (IIRC)
which referenced getpw* and err* was not properly protected with the
22 Ways to Get Yourself Killed While Watching 'The Lord Of The Rings':
#18: Imitate what you think a conversation between Gollum, Dobby and Yoda
would be like.