[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181011103636.GC9467@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:36:36 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext2, ext4, xfs: hard fail dax mount on unsupported
devices
On Mon 08-10-18 14:32:46, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> In response to an earlier xfs patch to change how xfs reacts to
> dax incompatibilities, Dave said:
>
> > I suspect we need to be more harsh are rejecting mounts with -o dax
> > on devices DAX isn't supported on. This mount option is going into
> > production systems - it's not just for "testing" as the comments all
> > claim. i Things will break in production systems if DAX isn't
> > enabled and they are expecting it to be enabled.
>
> and I tend to agree, so proposing this change to hard-fail a dax mount if
> the device doesn't support it, instead of silently disabling the
> functionality. Proposing for ext2, ext4, and xfs to keep behavior in
> sync.
Let me include Dan and Ross into the discussion since they were the ones
proposing the "silent fallback" behavior (ext4 actually did fail the mount
instead not so long ago - see 24f3478d664b "ext4: auto disable dax instead
of failing mount" from December). Guys, why did you choose the fallback
path instead of a failure?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists