Unintentionally arriving at the infamous "fsck" name is a bit funny.
But it's probably something we don't want to conflict with if we can
help it, on the off chance we want a sort of lfs3_fsck function in the
future. (This is all hypothetical, but lfs3_fsck may expect an unmounted
filesystem, and have a much larger scope than lfs3_fs_ck. Though typing
this out now I'm realizing how confusing that might be...)
Since lfs3_file_ck and lfs3_fs_ck share a subset of flags, it's not
_entirely_ unreasonable for lfs3_file_ck and lfs3_fs_ck to share the
same namespace.
There's a risk of confusing users around what flags lfs3_file_ck
accepts, but we have asserts, and said flags (LFS3_CK_MKCONSISTENT,
LFS3_CK_LOOKAHEAD, etc) just don't really make sense in lfs3_file_ck:
fs file
y LFS3_CK_MKCONSISTENT 0x00000800 Make the filesystem consistent
y LFS3_CK_LOOKAHEAD 0x00001000 Repopulate lookahead buffer
y LFS3_CK_LOOKGBMAP 0x00002000 Repopulate the gbmap
y LFS3_CK_PREERASE* 0x00004000 Pre-erase unused blocks
y LFS3_CK_COMPACTMETA 0x00008000 Compact metadata logs
y y LFS3_CK_CKMETA 0x00010000 Check metadata checksums
y y LFS3_CK_CKDATA 0x00020000 Check metadata + data checksums
y y LFS3_CK_REPAIRMETA* 0x00040000 Repair data blocks
y y LFS3_CK_REPAIRDATA* 0x00080000 Repair metadata + data blocks
* Planned
Another option would be to document that lfs3_fs_ck accepts both
LFS3_CK_* _and_ LFS3_GC_* flags, but I worry that would be more
confusing. It would also lock us into supporting all LFs3_GC_* flags in
lfs3_fs_ck, which may not always be the case.
Though this is an argument for doing away with the whole
LFS3_M/F/CK/GC/I_* duplication... (tbh another reason for this is to
reduce the number of namespaces by at least one).
No code changes.
Christopher Haster
c16c4a00d3