Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check | From | Junxiao Bi <> | Date | Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:33:36 +0800 |
| |
On 11/25/2015 05:46 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote: > 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)? Sound great. This is a good option since user may have not enough knowledge whether to fix the found issue.
Thanks, Junxiao. > > 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. > > >>> 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 >
| |