Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Also, thank you both for the extensive review and ideas during the
>> development of this series. It was really appreciated!
>>
>
> Thank you for your appreciated effort!
> It was a wild journey through some interesting experiments, but
> you survived it well ;-)
>
> Would you be interested in pursuing FAN_WB_ERROR after a due rest
> and after all the dust on FAN_FS_ERROR has settled?
I think it would make sense for me to continue working on it, yes. But,
before that, I think I still have some support to add to FAN_FS_ERROR,
like a detailed, fs-specific, info record, and an error location info
record, which has a use-case in Google Cloud environments. I have to
discuss priorities internally, but we (collabora) do have an interest in
supporting WB_ERROR too.
For the detailed error report, fanotify could have a new info record
that carries a structure sent out by the file system. fanotify could
handle the lifetime of this object, by keeping a larger mempool, or
delegate its allocation/destruction to the filesystem.
Like I proposed in an earlier version of FAN_FS_ERROR, the format could
be as simple as:
struct fanotify_error_data_info {
struct fanotify_event_info_header hdr;
char data[];
}
I think xfs, at least, would be able to make good use of this record with
xfs_scrub, as the xfs maintainers mentioned.
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
