On Aug 21, 2009 12:32 +0530, Aneesh Kumar wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:48:08AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:43:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> I'll keep it short and sweet: > > >> > > >> Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before > > >> people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or > > >> options therein? > > >> > > >> I'm thinking of, so far: > > > ...... > > >> tune2fs -I <bigger> > > > > > > I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get > > > that reviwed and applied > > > > Better, or _safe_? :) > > > > No offense and I certainly appreciate that work. If you feel it's > > robust enough now to safely unleash on users, I'll drop it from my list. :) > > I am interested in the test results. Getting more users to test would always > be nice. But it still would help to get a through review. Adding an inode resize operation into the f_random_corruption test, or into a similar test that runs with random mkfs parameters, would help exercise the functionality in ways that a static test does not. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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
