From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751700AbbLRWhF (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:37:05 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60007 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750839AbbLRWhD (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:37:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:37:01 -0800 From: Mark Fasheh To: Gang He Cc: Junxiao Bi , akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, rgoldwyn@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check Message-ID: <20151218223701.GJ11072@wotan.suse.de> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh References: <1446013561-22121-1-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> <1446013561-22121-3-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> <5638604E.9030000@oracle.com> <5638D8CF020000F90001CC68@relay2.provo.novell.com> <56386E4B.5080506@oracle.com> <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de> <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> Organization: SUSE Labs User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:29:41PM -0700, Gang He wrote: > Hi Mark and Junxiao, > > > >>> > > 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. > That is what I want to say, add a mount option to let users to decide. Here, I want to split "error=fix" > mount option task out from online file check feature, I think this part should be a independent feature. > We can implement this feature after online file check is done, I want to split the feature into some more > detailed features, implement them one by one. Do you agree this point? Yeah that's fine, I would have automatic checking turned off though until we have a good plan in place for users who do / don't want this. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Fasheh Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:37:01 -0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check In-Reply-To: <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> References: <1446013561-22121-1-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> <1446013561-22121-3-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> <5638604E.9030000@oracle.com> <5638D8CF020000F90001CC68@relay2.provo.novell.com> <56386E4B.5080506@oracle.com> <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de> <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> Message-ID: <20151218223701.GJ11072@wotan.suse.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Gang He Cc: Junxiao Bi , akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, rgoldwyn@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:29:41PM -0700, Gang He wrote: > Hi Mark and Junxiao, > > > >>> > > 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. > That is what I want to say, add a mount option to let users to decide. Here, I want to split "error=fix" > mount option task out from online file check feature, I think this part should be a independent feature. > We can implement this feature after online file check is done, I want to split the feature into some more > detailed features, implement them one by one. Do you agree this point? Yeah that's fine, I would have automatic checking turned off though until we have a good plan in place for users who do / don't want this. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh