Hi Mark and Junxiao,
>>> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:20:27PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 11/03/2015 03:54 PM, Gang He wrote: >> > Hi Junxiao, >> > >> > Thank for your reviewing. >> > Current design, we use a sysfile as a interface to check/fix a file (via > pass a ino number). >> > But, this operation is manually triggered by user, instead of >> > automatically > fix in the kernel. >> > Why? >> > 1) we should let users make this decision, since some users do not want to > fix when encountering a file system corruption, maybe they want to keep the > file system unchanged for a further investigation. >> If user don't want this, they should not use error=continue option, let >> fs go after a corruption is very dangerous. > > Maybe we need another errors=XXX flag (maybe errors=fix)? > > You both make good points, here's what I gather from the conversation: > > - Some customers would be sad if they have to manually fix corruptions. > This takes effort on their part, and if the FS can handle it > automatically, it should. > > - There are valid concerns that automatically fixing things is a change in > behavior that might not be welcome, or worse might lead to unforseeable > circumstances. > > - I will add that fixing things automatically implies checking them > automatically which could introduce some performance impact depending on > how much checking we're doing. > > So if the user wants errors to be fixed automatically, they could mount with > errros=fix, and everyone else would have no change in behavior unless they > wanted to make use of the new feature. That is what I want to say, add a mount option to let users to decide. Here, I want to split "error=fix" mount option task out from online file check feature, I think this part should be a independent feature. We can implement this feature after online file check is done, I want to split the feature into some more detailed features, implement them one by one. Do you agree this point? > > >> > 2) frankly speaking, this feature will probably bring a second corruption > if there is some error in the code, I do not suggest to use automatically fix > by default in the first version. >> I think if this feature could bring more corruption, then this should be >> fixed first. > > Btw, I am pretty sure that Gang is referring to the feature being new and > thus more likely to have problems. There is nothing I see in here that is > file system corrupting. > --Mark > > > -- > Mark Fasheh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
