[Libguestfs] [PATCH 2/5] New API: btrfs_check

[Hu Tao]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 01:36:56PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> On Monday 12 January 2015 09:37:36 Hu Tao wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:25:50PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > > In data venerdì 26 dicembre 2014 16:17:46, Hu Tao ha scritto:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hutao at cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  daemon/btrfs.c       | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  generator/actions.ml | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > >  src/MAX_PROC_NR      |  2 +-
> > > >  3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c
> > > > index 79de539..de20bc3 100644
> > > > --- a/daemon/btrfs.c
> > > > +++ b/daemon/btrfs.c
> > > > @@ -1375,3 +1375,27 @@ do_btrfs_scrub (const char *path)
> > > >  
> > > >    return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > > +
> > > > +int
> > > > +do_btrfs_check (const char *device)
> > > > +{
> > > > +  const size_t MAX_ARGS = 64;
> > > > +  const char *argv[MAX_ARGS];
> > > > +  size_t i = 0;
> > > > +  CLEANUP_FREE char *err = NULL;
> > > > +  CLEANUP_FREE char *out = NULL;
> > > > +  int r;
> > > > +
> > > > +  ADD_ARG (argv, i, str_btrfs);
> > > > +  ADD_ARG (argv, i, "check");
> > > > +  ADD_ARG (argv, i, device);
> > > > +  ADD_ARG (argv, i, NULL);
> > > > +
> > > > +  r = commandv (&out, &err, argv);
> > > > +  if (r == -1) {
> > > > +    reply_with_error ("%s: %s", device, err);
> > > > +    return -1;
> > > > +  }
> > > > +
> > > > +  return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > We do have already a "fsck" action; OTOH fsck.btrfs does nothing, so
> > > I would rather call `btrfs check` there, instead of adding a new
> > > btrfs-specific API.
> > > Let's make our fsck useful on btrfs :)
> > 
> > I found btrfs_fsck has been already implemented. Do you mean we should
> > extend btrfs to support btrfs?
> 
> I guess you mean "... extend fsck to support btrfs", right? :)

Yes, I had "extend fsck" in mind but...

> 
> That could be an idea, but given that "btrfs check" may usually need
> additional parameter, then it might not be worth it.

Okay.

Regards,
Hu