On 17/04/2015 16:43, Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 17-04-15 15:51:14, John Spray wrote:
On 17/04/2015 14:23, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
For some filesystems, it may make sense to differentiate between a
generic warning and an error. For BTRFS and ZFS for example, if
there is a csum error on a block, this will get automatically
corrected in many configurations, and won't require anything like
fsck to be run, but monitoring applications will still probably
want to be notified.
Another key differentiation IMHO is between transient errors (like
server is unavailable in a distributed filesystem) that will block
the filesystem but might clear on their own, vs. permanent errors
like unreadable drives that definitely will not clear until the
administrator takes some action. It's usually a reasonable
approximation to call transient issues warnings, and permanent
issues errors.
So you can have events like FS_UNAVAILABLE and FS_AVAILABLE but what use
would this have? I wouldn't like the interface to be dumping ground for
random crap - we have dmesg for that :).
In that case I'm confused -- why would ENOSPC be an appropriate use of
this interface if the mount being entirely blocked would be
inappropriate? Isn't being unable to service any I/O a more fundamental
and severe thing than being up and healthy but full?
Were you intending the interface to be exclusively for data integrity
issues like checksum failures, rather than more general events about a
mount that userspace would probably like to know about?
John
--
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
