[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480B4390.4010907@rtr.ca>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:22:24 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default
Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> The code in the kernel that gets the fewest coverage at all are our
> error paths, and some vendor might try 4k stacks, validate it works in
> all use cases - and then it will blow up in some error condition he
> didn't test.
..
That's exactly the worry.
If anyone want's to take a crack at testing some of the more likely
fail paths there, just introduce a media error onto a SATA disk
that's buried at the bottom of a stacked RAID1 over RAID0 over LVM,
with XFS and nfsd on top.
Or something like that.
And then experiment with corrupting meta data rather than simply file data.
How-to introduce a media error? hdparm --make-bad-sector nnnnnn /dev/sdX
This catches the most likely (IMHO) failure scenarios,
but still comes nowhere near 100% code coverage. :(
Cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists