[getting back to this...] On 19 May 2017, Shaohua Li told this: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:31:23AM +0100, Nix wrote: >> On 19 May 2017, NeilBrown verbalised: >> > we'd probably make the list of inconsistencies appear in a >> > sysfs file. That would be less 'crappy'. But as I say, I don't think >> > we really want to do that. >> >> Aren't sysfs files in effect length-limited to one page (or at least >> length-limited by virtue of being stored in memory?) It seems to me this >> would just bring the same problem ratelimit is solving right back again, >> except a sysfs file doesn't have a logging daemon sucking the contents >> out constantly so you can overwrite your old output without worrying. >> (And there is no other daemon running to do that, except mdadm in >> monitor mode, which might not be running and really this job feels out >> of scope for it anyway.) > > No, my question is not the print is ratelimited. The problem is dmesg isn't a > good way to communicate info to userspace. You can easily lose all dmesg info > with a simple 'dmesg -c'. sysfs file is more reliable. Length-limited isn't a > problem, as you said, if there are a lot of mismatch, the array is toast. I agree that in future having a mechanism for reporting this more easily usable by programs would be good, and sysfs does seem like just such a mechanism. -- NULL && (void) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
