[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <534DB38B.7030805@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:32:43 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add fallocate mode blocking for debugging purposes
On 4/15/14, 1:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:15:41AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> I tend to agree, better to fix the kernel than to add a knob to turn it
>> off. And fsx changes can happen a lot quicker than kernel changes. [1]
>>
>> And if it's really unsafe, and you really want to add a knob, I'd at least
>> default it to off until it's non-corrupting, and add a message that
>> this tunable will go away as soon as it's stable, so you'll have no
>> qualms about quickly deprecating it...
>
> Yeah, I went back and forth on this. One of there reasons why I added
> a kernel knob is that *I* can make the kernel change a lot faster than
> it would be to tweak all of the various xfstests program to globally
> disable certain operations in fsx, fstress, etc.
>
> I also had a sneaking suspicion that we might have a similar issue
> with the INSERT RANGE patches which are coming down the pike, and so
> having a general way of also being able INSERT RANGE if to be able to
> quickly determine whether a potential bug was caused by INSERT RANGE
> or some other pending changes might also be useful.
Also: I'd humbly suggest just not merging those until they pass stringent
tests like fsx & fsstress...
Adding a pre-emptive knob to turn them off post-merge when they turn
out to be broken sounds backwards to me...
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists