Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/31199: tunefs error is incorrect when enabling softupdates Message-ID: <200110151530.f9FFU1F89614@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/31199; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net>
Cc: <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: bin/31199: tunefs error is incorrect when enabling softupdates
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:22:37 +1000 (EST)
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:46:07AM -0400, Rob Simmons wrote:
> ...
> > >How-To-Repeat:
> > run "tunefs -n enable <fs>" on a mounted filesystem.
> >
> > You will get the following output:
> >
> > bash-2.05$ tunefs -n enable /dev/ad0s1a
> > tunefs: soft updates set
> > tunefs: cannot open /dev/ad0s1a: Permission denied
>
> Looking at the code, I think the least obtrusive way to fix this is to
> slightly reword the messages a little more clear. tunefs(8) goes
> through all of the options before it actually tries to modify the file
> system.
This was broken in rev.1.12. tunefs previously opened the device with
mode O_RDWR (spelled as "2") up front in getsb(). This was bogus for
the -p case since it required write access to display the settings, but
is needed for all other cases since tunefs writes even null changes.
> The messages should reflect that it is collecting the values
> before it actually tries to write them. Something more like,
>
> $ tunefs -n enable /dev/ad0s1a
> tunefs: setting soft updates...
> tunefs: cannot open /dev/ad0s1a: Permission denied
The "setting" message used to be "soft updates set". I changed this to
"soft updates changes from disabled to enabled" (and similarly for
"soft updates cleared" so that the wording is similar for all the messages.
> And in a successful run (since tunefs(8) is already chatty on
> success),
>
> $ tunefs -n enable /dev/ad0s1a
> tunefs: setting soft updates...
> tunefs: changes on /dev/ad0s1 done
The "changes done" message is silly if tunefs has only printed "remains
unchanged" messages.
> This patch look good?
>
> Index: tunefs.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /export/ncvs/src/sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.20
> diff -u -r1.20 tunefs.c
> --- tunefs.c 2001/09/30 14:57:08 1.20
> +++ tunefs.c 2001/10/15 09:43:07
> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
> warnx("%s remains unchanged as %d", name, avalue);
> }
> else {
> - warnx("%s changes from %d to %d",
> + warnx("changing %s from %d to %d...",
> name, sblock.fs_maxcontig, avalue);
> sblock.fs_maxcontig = avalue;
> }
I don't think this is any better. The unusual wording in the original was
apparently chosen to put the subject first. Neither version claims to have
completed the changes (that would be "%s changed").
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110151530.f9FFU1F89614>