On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:11:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:13:33AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > So what do you think of the version that adds real printks for > > each condition including more details like the one verifier I > > did below? Probably needs some unlikely annotations, though. > > Given that there was another resend of the series I'd be really > curious about the answer to this? If we increase the size of the hexdump on error, then most of the specific numbers in the print statements can be pulled from the hexdump. And if the verifier tells us exactly what check failed, we don't have to decode the entire hexdump to know what field was out of band. Perhaps what we should think about here is adding a mode to xfs_db to decode the hexdump into structured output so we don't have to manually decode the hex dumps ever again.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
