On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:22:47AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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. How much do we increase the size of the hexdump? 64 -> 128? Or whatever the structure header size is? How about if xfs_error_level >= XFS_ERRORLEVEL_HIGH then we dump the entire buffer? > 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.... Seems useful, yes. --D > > 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 -- 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
