From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932259AbbKYD3v (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:29:51 -0500 Received: from relay2.provo.novell.com ([137.65.250.214]:60701 "EHLO relay2.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753510AbbKYD3s convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:29:48 -0500 Message-Id: <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.0.2 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:29:41 -0700 From: "Gang He" To: "Junxiao Bi" , "Mark Fasheh" Cc: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check 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> In-Reply-To: <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > > >> > 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: Gang He Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:29:41 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check In-Reply-To: <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de> 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> Message-ID: <56559BA5020000F90001FC8B@relay2.provo.novell.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Junxiao Bi , Mark Fasheh Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, rgoldwyn@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > > >> > 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