Home / Browse / Journaled File System / Mail / Archive

Journaled File System

Email Archive: jfs-discussion (read-only)

[Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Barry Arndt <barndt@us...> - 2002-10-17 23:57

We would like to rename the JFS utilities for
consistency and to have more meaningful names.
We will then ship them as part of a jfsutils
dot release.

It has been suggested that we preface the utility
names with jfs_.  The proposed names are as follows:


fsck.jfs => jfs_fsck
(a hard link will be created for fsck.jfs)

mkfs.jfs => jfs_mkfs
(a hard link will be created for mkfs.jfs)

logdump  => jfs_logdump
logredo  => jfs_logredo
xpeek    => jfs_debug
jfs_tune will remain the same

xchkdmp and xchklog will be combined into
one utility and will be named jfs_fscklog


Comments?  Suggestions?

Thanks.

Barry Arndt
barndt@...
IBM Linux Technology Center
JFS for Linux http://oss.software.ibm.com/jfs

Thread View

Thread	Author	Date
[Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities	Barry Arndt <barndt@us...>

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@in...> - 2002-10-18 00:04

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:56:53PM -0400, Barry Arndt wrote:
> We would like to rename the JFS utilities for
> consistency and to have more meaningful names.
> We will then ship them as part of a jfsutils
> dot release.
> 
> It has been suggested that we preface the utility
> names with jfs_.  The proposed names are as follows:
> 
> 
> fsck.jfs => jfs_fsck
> (a hard link will be created for fsck.jfs)
> 
> mkfs.jfs => jfs_mkfs
> (a hard link will be created for mkfs.jfs)
> 
> logdump  => jfs_logdump
> logredo  => jfs_logredo

should be merged into fsck, imho.
just make it fsck -l or so and document that).

> xpeek    => jfs_debug

jfs_debugfs?

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@au...> - 2002-10-18 00:29

On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> > logdump  => jfs_logdump
> > logredo  => jfs_logredo
>
> should be merged into fsck, imho.
> just make it fsck -l or so and document that).

Which one(s)?  logredo?  This one is already built into fsck.  The only 
nice thing about a stand-alone version is that you can replay the log 
without the possibility of running the whole fsck.  This is good for 
debugging, but it could probably be accomplished with a new fsck flag 
that says replay log only.

logdump?  It probably makes more sense to be merged into jfs_debugfs, if 
it is merged at all.  jfs_debugfs, jfs_logdump, and jfs_fscklog are 
only useful as debugging tools and I don't think the code should be in 
the fsck.jfs binary.

> > xpeek    => jfs_debug
>
> jfs_debugfs?

Fine with me.
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@in...> - 2002-10-18 00:31

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:31:59PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> > > logdump  => jfs_logdump
> > > logredo  => jfs_logredo
> >
> > should be merged into fsck, imho.
> > just make it fsck -l or so and document that).
> 
> Which one(s)?  logredo?

Yes.

> This one is already built into fsck.  The only 
> nice thing about a stand-alone version is that you can replay the log 
> without the possibility of running the whole fsck.  This is good for 
> debugging, but it could probably be accomplished with a new fsck flag 
> that says replay log only.

I know :)  That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" option
to fsck instead of a standalone util.

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@au...> - 2002-10-18 00:38

On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I know :)  That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" option
> to fsck instead of a standalone util.

Okay. I agree.  I was just making sure I understood.  -l conflicts with 
an e2fsck flag though.  Maybe -O (opposite of -o).

-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Scott Russell <lnxgeek@us...> - 2002-10-18 00:45

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:41:12PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I know :)  That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" option
> > to fsck instead of a standalone util.
> 
> Okay. I agree.  I was just making sure I understood.  -l conflicts with 
> an e2fsck flag though.  Maybe -O (opposite of -o).

-0 and -O look very similar on a tty. Avoid -0 or -O IMHO.

-- 
  Scott Russell (lnxgeek@...)
  Linux Technology Center, System Admin, RHCE.
  Dial 877-735-8200 then ask for 919-543-9289 (TTY)

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@au...> - 2002-10-18 00:50

On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:45, Scott Russell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:41:12PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > I know :)  That's why I think it should be a "only replay log"
> > > option to fsck instead of a standalone util.
> >
> > Okay. I agree.  I was just making sure I understood.  -l conflicts
> > with an e2fsck flag though.  Maybe -O (opposite of -o).
>
> -0 and -O look very similar on a tty. Avoid -0 or -O IMHO.

Good point.   Both -p and -n together (or -a and -n)?

-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Scott Russell <lnxgeek@us...> - 2002-10-18 00:58

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:45, Scott Russell wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:41:12PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > I know :)  That's why I think it should be a "only replay log"
> > > > option to fsck instead of a standalone util.
> > >
> > > Okay. I agree.  I was just making sure I understood.  -l conflicts
> > > with an e2fsck flag though.  Maybe -O (opposite of -o).
> >
> > -0 and -O look very similar on a tty. Avoid -0 or -O IMHO.
> 
> Good point.   Both -p and -n together (or -a and -n)?

If it's an 'obscure' option then the way to handle is to use a long
opt only I think. fsck.jfs --something. That way there is no confusion
and a user won't 'accidentally' invoke it.

just my 0.2

-- 
  Scott Russell (lnxgeek@...)
  Linux Technology Center, System Admin, RHCE.
  Dial 877-735-8200 then ask for 919-543-9289 (TTY)

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@au...> - 2002-10-18 01:05

On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:58, Scott Russell wrote:
> If it's an 'obscure' option then the way to handle is to use a long
> opt only I think. fsck.jfs --something. That way there is no
> confusion and a user won't 'accidentally' invoke it.

Yeah, that would help avoid confusion.  --replay_journal_only gets my 
vote unless someone suggests a shorter name that is just as obvious.

-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities

From: <caszonyi@ya...> - 2002-10-18 09:50

--- Christoph Hellwig <hch@...> a écrit : > On Thu,
Oct 17, 2002 at 04:56:53PM -0400, Barry Arndt wrote:
> > We would like to rename the JFS utilities for
> > consistency and to have more meaningful names.
> > We will then ship them as part of a jfsutils
> > dot release.
> > 
> > It has been suggested that we preface the utility
> > names with jfs_.  The proposed names are as follows:
> > 
> > 
> > fsck.jfs => jfs_fsck
> > (a hard link will be created for fsck.jfs)
> > 
> > mkfs.jfs => jfs_mkfs
> > (a hard link will be created for mkfs.jfs)
> > 
> > logdump  => jfs_logdump
> > logredo  => jfs_logredo
> 
> should be merged into fsck, imho.
> just make it fsck -l or so and document that).
> 

It's better this way (as Christoph suggested )

> > xpeek    => jfs_debug
> 
> jfs_debugfs?
> 

Same as above. 
How about a tunejfs utility ? 

Having to remember the name of the program when you
want to do a fsck is pretty sucks.

Bye 
Calin


=====
--
A mouse is a device used to point at 
the xterm you want to type in.
Kim Alm on a.s.r.

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com