On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:14:36PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote: > First, waiting a few seconds for the standard FC-6 daemons to wake up. > Then, Xemacs and Firefox. Not tested on SMP.
Is it failslab or fail_page_alloc ? > > This doesn't maximize code coverage. It makes fault-injector reject > > any failures which have same stacktrace before. > > Since the volume of (repeated) dumps is greatly reduced, > interval/probability can be set more aggressively without crippling > interaction. This increases the number of error recovery paths covered > per unit of wall clock time. > It seems artificial. Injecting failures into slab or page allocator causes vastly greater range of errors and it should be. I feel what you really want is new fault capability. Fault injection is designed be extensible. It's not only for failslab, fail_page_alloc, and fail_make_request. If we want to inject errors into try_something() and have own tuning or setting, we just need to extend fault attribute and define own judging function, struct fail_try_something_attr { struct gorgeous_tuning tuning; struct fail_attr attr; } = fail_try_something = { .attr = FAULT_ATTR_INITIALIZER, }; static int should_fail_try_something(void *data) { if (tuning_did_clever_decision(&fail_try_something.tuning, data)) return 0; return should_fail(&fail_try_something.attr); } Then insert it into try_something() int try_something(void *data) { if (should_fail_try_something(data)) return 0; ... return 1; } Common debugfs entries for fault capabilities will be complicated soon by pushing new entries for every fault case or pattern. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/