On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 04:29:29PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?
FWIW I /did/ notice that the flags usage could be turned into an enum
and intentionally left that cleanup (and the "int logerror" sprinkled
everywhere) for 5.15. Maybe Dave will beat me to it, who knows.
--D
>
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
