From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5133D573.3050106@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130303235341.7470085e@spider.haslach.nod.at>
On 3/3/13 4:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Anyway, what if you did something more along the lines of [pseudocode]
>>
>> ocfs2)
>> if mounted.ocfs2 -f $TEST-DEV | frob_as_necessary[1]
>> ;
>> else
>> fsck.ocfs2 $TEST-DEV
>> fi
>> ;;
>>
>> so that *if* it's mounted on some other node, the fsck won't run.
>> That has downsides as Dave mentioned, but for the case where the
>> xfstests node is the only one with it in use, it'll still do the
>> beneficial consistency check.
>>
>> Just tweaking the fsck action bsed on *if* it's mounted (or,
>> maybe, if the node is in a cluster?) might be a more generic solution
>> that is widely applicable to all ocfs2 test environments.
>
> Good point. mounted.ocfs2 really makes sense. I'll implement this on my
> test suite and submit a new patch.
Sounds good to me.
It'd be most preferable to do a cluster-wide unmount and fsck,
but if that's unfeasible, then skipping the fsck (with a warning) is
still preferable to simply disabling it outright for everyone.
Thanks,
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:57:55 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5133D573.3050106@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130303235341.7470085e@spider.haslach.nod.at>
On 3/3/13 4:53 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Anyway, what if you did something more along the lines of [pseudocode]
>>
>> ocfs2)
>> if mounted.ocfs2 -f $TEST-DEV | frob_as_necessary[1]
>> ;
>> else
>> fsck.ocfs2 $TEST-DEV
>> fi
>> ;;
>>
>> so that *if* it's mounted on some other node, the fsck won't run.
>> That has downsides as Dave mentioned, but for the case where the
>> xfstests node is the only one with it in use, it'll still do the
>> beneficial consistency check.
>>
>> Just tweaking the fsck action bsed on *if* it's mounted (or,
>> maybe, if the node is in a cluster?) might be a more generic solution
>> that is widely applicable to all ocfs2 test environments.
>
> Good point. mounted.ocfs2 really makes sense. I'll implement this on my
> test suite and submit a new patch.
Sounds good to me.
It'd be most preferable to do a cluster-wide unmount and fsck,
but if that's unfeasible, then skipping the fsck (with a warning) is
still preferable to simply disabling it outright for everyone.
Thanks,
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-03 22:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-03 0:05 [PATCH] Do not check ocfs2 Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 0:05 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 1:19 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-03 1:19 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-03 9:02 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 9:02 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 22:04 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-03-03 22:19 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 22:19 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 22:40 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-03-03 22:40 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-03-03 22:53 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 22:53 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-03 22:57 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2013-03-03 22:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-03-04 0:42 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-04 0:42 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-04 21:05 ` Joel Becker
2013-03-04 21:05 ` Joel Becker
2013-03-04 22:09 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-04 22:09 ` Richard Weinberger
2013-03-04 22:57 ` Joel Becker
2013-03-04 22:57 ` Joel Becker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5133D573.3050106@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.