Hi Gang, On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, Gang He wrote: > 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? With error=fix, when a possible corruption is found, online fsck will start to check and fix things. So this doesn't looks like a independent feature.
Thanks, Junxiao. > >> >> >>>> 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/
