Hey fellows. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 06:15:26AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 05:45:50PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 02:51:11PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:42:03AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:51:22AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:54:43PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > there goes a new version of this patchset based on previous reviews on V3. > > > > > > > > > > > > Changelogs added separated to each patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > > > > > I pointed out the last things that I'm aware of that I think need to be > > > > > fixed in this series (along with a few nits here and there). That said, > > > > > it's already been pointed out that we probably want an xfstests test > > > > > case to go along with this before it would be merged. Is that something > > > > > you are still planning on? > > > > > Well, I am sure planing a xfstests for this case, I just didn't stop to work on it yet, and well, I wasn't expecting to have the test done before merging this patchset, is this a requirement? If so, I'll work on that before finishing this series, otherwise I'll just finish the series and then move to the xfstests. . . . > > > > > something like a new DEBUG sysfs attribute in the error configuration > > > > > (see log_badcrc_factor for a similar example). > > > > > > > > I wonder if it would be more useful to have individual knobs for each > > > > metadata object type so that you could have multiple xfstests, each of > > > > which runs the same software scenario but with different failures > > > > > > > > > > I suppose you could do some of that in the test just by making certain . . . > > XFS_RANDOM_ values (i.e. inverted frequency). Now we're free of the > > limitation of only being able to inject 10 error types across all > > mounted fses, and we can individually disable injection too. > > > > Nice, that sounds very interesting.. thanks! > > Brian > Regarding the error injection knobs (and the bad quoting of previous replies above :), I like the idea, and I can surely work on such implementation, but, I honestly disagree with having the error injection patches in this same patchset. This will recreate a new discussion regarding the implementation, several new reviews, comments, etc and postpone this fix even more. I'd highly appreciate if we could do this in a different patchset, so we can have this fix merged sooner. What you guys think? also, let me know if I should send the xfstest before moving on with this patchset. Cheers -- Carlos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
