On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 07:06:40AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 04:02:22PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > if (flags & SHUTDOWN_FORCE_UMOUNT) {
> > > > xfs_alert(mp,
> > > > -"User initiated shutdown received. Shutting down filesystem");
> > > > +"User initiated shutdown (0x%x) received. Shutting down filesystem",
> > > > + flags);
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > So SHUTDOWN_FORCE_UMOUNT can actually be used together with
> > > SHUTDOWN_LOG_IO_ERROR so printing something more specific could be
> > > useful, although I'd prefer text over the hex flags.
> >
> > I'm in the process of reworking the shutdown code because shutdown
> > is so, so very broken. Can we just fix the message and stop moving
> > the goal posts on me while I try to fix bugs?
>
> I suggest just not adding these not very useful flags. That is not
> moving the goal post. And I'm growing really tried of this pointlessly
> aggressive attitude.
Aggressive? Not at all. I'm being realistic.
We've still got bugs in the for-next tree that need to be fixed and
this code is part of the problem. It's already -rc7 and we need to
focus on understanding the bugs in for-next well enough to either
fix them or revert them.
Cosmetic concerns about the code are extremely low priority right
now, so can you please just have a little patience here and wait for
me to deal with the bugs rather than bikeshedding log messages that
might not even exist in a couple of days time?
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
