Hi, On Tue 04-03-08 13:39:41, Josef Bacik wrote: > jbd and I want a way to verify that I'm not screwing anything up in the > process, and this is what I came up with. Basically this option would only be > used in the case where someone mounts an ext3 image or fs, does a specific IO > operation (create 100 files, write data to a few files etc), unmounts the fs > and remounts so that jbd does its journal recovery and then check the status of > the fs to make sure its exactly the way its expected to be. I'm not entirely > sure how usefull of an option like this would be (or if I did it right :) ), > but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anybody thinks it may be useful, > and in case there is some case that I'm missing so I can fix it and better make > sure I don't mess anything up while doing stuff. Basically this patch keeps us > from resetting the journal's tail/transaction sequence when we destroy the > journal so when we mount the fs again it will look like we didn't unmount > properly and recovery will occur. Any comments are much appreciated, Actually, there is a different way how we've done checking like this (and I think also more useful), at least for ext3. Basically you mounted a filesysteem with some timeout and after the timeout, device was forced read-only. And then you've checked that the fs is consistent after journal replay. I think Andrew had the patches somewhere... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
