From: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de> To: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com> Cc: Gang He <ghe@suse.com>, rgoldwyn@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:46:17 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <56386E4B.5080506@oracle.com> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:20:27PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: > Hi Gang, > > On 11/03/2015 03:54 PM, Gang He wrote: > > Hi Junxiao, > > > > Thank for your reviewing. > > Current design, we use a sysfile as a interface to check/fix a file (via pass a ino number). > > But, this operation is manually triggered by user, instead of automatically fix in the kernel. > > Why? > > 1) we should let users make this decision, since some users do not want to fix when encountering a file system corruption, maybe they want to keep the file system unchanged for a further investigation. > If user don't want this, they should not use error=continue option, let > fs go after a corruption is very dangerous. Maybe we need another errors=XXX flag (maybe errors=fix)? You both make good points, here's what I gather from the conversation: - Some customers would be sad if they have to manually fix corruptions. This takes effort on their part, and if the FS can handle it automatically, it should. - There are valid concerns that automatically fixing things is a change in behavior that might not be welcome, or worse might lead to unforseeable circumstances. - I will add that fixing things automatically implies checking them automatically which could introduce some performance impact depending on how much checking we're doing. So if the user wants errors to be fixed automatically, they could mount with errros=fix, and everyone else would have no change in behavior unless they wanted to make use of the new feature. > > 2) frankly speaking, this feature will probably bring a second corruption if there is some error in the code, I do not suggest to use automatically fix by default in the first version. > I think if this feature could bring more corruption, then this should be > fixed first. Btw, I am pretty sure that Gang is referring to the feature being new and thus more likely to have problems. There is nothing I see in here that is file system corrupting. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de> To: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com> Cc: Gang He <ghe@suse.com>, rgoldwyn@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:46:17 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <56386E4B.5080506@oracle.com> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:20:27PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: > Hi Gang, > > On 11/03/2015 03:54 PM, Gang He wrote: > > Hi Junxiao, > > > > Thank for your reviewing. > > Current design, we use a sysfile as a interface to check/fix a file (via pass a ino number). > > But, this operation is manually triggered by user, instead of automatically fix in the kernel. > > Why? > > 1) we should let users make this decision, since some users do not want to fix when encountering a file system corruption, maybe they want to keep the file system unchanged for a further investigation. > If user don't want this, they should not use error=continue option, let > fs go after a corruption is very dangerous. Maybe we need another errors=XXX flag (maybe errors=fix)? You both make good points, here's what I gather from the conversation: - Some customers would be sad if they have to manually fix corruptions. This takes effort on their part, and if the FS can handle it automatically, it should. - There are valid concerns that automatically fixing things is a change in behavior that might not be welcome, or worse might lead to unforseeable circumstances. - I will add that fixing things automatically implies checking them automatically which could introduce some performance impact depending on how much checking we're doing. So if the user wants errors to be fixed automatically, they could mount with errros=fix, and everyone else would have no change in behavior unless they wanted to make use of the new feature. > > 2) frankly speaking, this feature will probably bring a second corruption if there is some error in the code, I do not suggest to use automatically fix by default in the first version. > I think if this feature could bring more corruption, then this should be > fixed first. Btw, I am pretty sure that Gang is referring to the feature being new and thus more likely to have problems. There is nothing I see in here that is file system corrupting. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-24 21:46 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-10-28 6:25 [PATCH v2 0/4] Add online file check feature Gang He 2015-10-28 6:25 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-10-28 6:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] ocfs2: export ocfs2_kset for online file check Gang He 2015-10-28 6:25 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-24 21:47 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-11-24 21:47 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Mark Fasheh 2015-10-28 6:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces " Gang He 2015-10-28 6:25 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-03 7:20 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 7:20 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 7:54 ` Gang He 2015-11-03 7:54 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-03 8:20 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 8:20 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 8:30 ` Gang He 2015-11-03 8:30 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-24 21:46 ` Mark Fasheh [this message] 2015-11-24 21:46 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-11-24 21:55 ` Srinivas Eeda 2015-11-24 21:55 ` Srinivas Eeda 2015-11-25 3:29 ` Gang He 2015-11-25 3:29 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-25 4:43 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-25 4:43 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-25 5:11 ` Gang He 2015-11-25 5:11 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-12-18 22:37 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-12-18 22:37 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Mark Fasheh 2015-11-25 4:33 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-25 4:33 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-24 21:52 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-11-24 21:52 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-10-28 6:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] ocfs2: create/remove sysfile " Gang He 2015-10-28 6:26 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-24 21:53 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-11-24 21:53 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Mark Fasheh 2015-10-28 6:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] ocfs2: check/fix inode block " Gang He 2015-10-28 6:26 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-03 7:12 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 7:12 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 8:15 ` Gang He 2015-11-03 8:15 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-03 8:29 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 8:29 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 8:47 ` Gang He 2015-11-03 8:47 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-03 9:01 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 9:01 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Junxiao Bi 2015-11-03 9:25 ` Gang He 2015-11-03 9:25 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-11-24 22:16 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-11-24 22:16 ` Mark Fasheh 2015-11-25 4:11 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-25 4:11 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-25 5:04 ` Gang He 2015-11-25 5:04 ` Gang He 2015-11-25 5:44 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-11-25 5:44 ` Junxiao Bi 2015-10-28 16:34 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] Add online file check feature Srinivas Eeda 2015-10-28 16:34 ` Srinivas Eeda 2015-10-29 4:44 ` Gang He 2015-10-29 4:44 ` Gang He 2015-10-29 7:46 ` Srinivas Eeda 2015-10-29 7:46 ` Srinivas Eeda 2015-10-29 8:26 ` Gang He 2015-10-29 8:26 ` Gang He 2015-12-02 18:20 ` Pavel Machek 2015-12-02 18:20 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Pavel Machek 2015-12-03 2:05 ` Gang He 2015-12-03 2:05 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-12-03 5:17 ` Greg KH 2015-12-03 5:17 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Greg KH 2015-12-04 8:36 ` Gang He 2015-12-04 8:36 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He 2015-12-04 9:20 ` Pavel Machek 2015-12-04 9:20 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Pavel Machek 2015-12-04 16:40 ` Greg KH 2015-12-04 16:40 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Greg KH 2015-12-07 3:33 ` Gang He 2015-12-07 3:33 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Gang He
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de \ --to=mfasheh@suse.de \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=ghe@suse.com \ --cc=junxiao.bi@oracle.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \ --cc=rgoldwyn@suse.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.