From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754837AbbKYEog (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:44:36 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:31007 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753254AbbKYEoc (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:44:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check To: Gang He , 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> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, rgoldwyn@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Junxiao Bi Message-ID: <56553C7B.8050602@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:43:39 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Gang, On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, 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? With error=fix, when a possible corruption is found, online fsck will start to check and fix things. So this doesn't looks like a independent feature. Thanks, Junxiao. > >> >> >>>> 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 > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junxiao Bi Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:43:39 +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: <56553C7B.8050602@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Gang He , Mark Fasheh Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, rgoldwyn@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Gang, On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, 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? With error=fix, when a possible corruption is found, online fsck will start to check and fix things. So this doesn't looks like a independent feature. Thanks, Junxiao. > >> >> >>>> 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 >