[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications
On 2015-04-17 09:04, Beata Michalska wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 01:31 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Wed 15-04-15 09:15:44, Beata Michalska wrote:
>> ...
>>> +static const match_table_t fs_etypes = {
>>> + { FS_EVENT_INFO, "info" },
>>> + { FS_EVENT_WARN, "warn" },
>>> + { FS_EVENT_THRESH, "thr" },
>>> + { FS_EVENT_ERR, "err" },
>>> + { 0, NULL },
>>> +};
>> Why are there these generic message types? Threshold messages make good
>> sense to me. But not so much the rest. If they don't have a clear meaning,
>> it will be a mess. So I also agree with a message like - "filesystem has
>> trouble, you should probably unmount and run fsck" - that's fine. But
>> generic "info" or "warning" doesn't really carry any meaning on its own and
>> thus seems pretty useless to me. To explain a bit more, AFAIU this
>> shouldn't be a generic logging interface where something like severity
>> makes sense but rather a relatively specific interface notifying about
>> events in filesystem userspace should know about so I expect relatively low
>> number of types of events, not tens or even hundreds...
>> Honza
> Getting rid of those would simplify the configuration part, indeed.
> So we would be left with 'generic' and threshold events.
> I guess I've overdone this part.

For some filesystems, it may make sense to differentiate between a
generic warning and an error. For BTRFS and ZFS for example, if there
is a csum error on a block, this will get automatically corrected in
many configurations, and won't require anything like fsck to be run, but
monitoring applications will still probably want to be notified.

[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 16:01    [W:0.469 / U:4.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site