On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:51:20PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:53:25AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 01:06:29PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 02:53:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > On 2/23/15 2:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > Oh well, even more spam during xfstest runs :) > > > > > > > > Heh, but no review...? > > > > > > > > I could be talked out of it, if people think it's not useful > > > > enough. > > > > > > I can't really get excited enough either way to give a review or nak.. > > > > > > > Heh, what verbosity is xfs_notice()? Maybe using debug level would be > > better? > > The context Eric and I wanted to see this was when triaging bugs on > production systems. e.g. to know if someone unmounted a shut down > filesystem and tried to repair it before rebooting the system... > I guess that makes sense on a clean reboot, less so if the shutdown is a rootfs and leads to a panic or something of that sort (and what does a umount matter once the fs is shutdown?). Anyways, it's not a common operation and if the extra xfstests logging is the most significant tradeoff then it seems harmless to me: Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
