From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: Check fs consistency on TEST_DEV only when needed
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 20:52:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53BDF1D2.6000204@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140710010711.GJ4453@dastard>
On 7/9/14, 8:07 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Reducing runtime of the test harness is a good idea, but we should
> not do that if the cost is that it reduces the reliability of error
> detection.
Still, this could have a really big impact, especially on filesystems
with slow fsck.
It'd be great to find a way to make this reliable.
It's kind of a historical accident that "test" is always mounted, but
"scratch" must be _required. What if we added _require_test if we're
going to write to test, and doing so triggers the check?
I'm sure there are other ways around it. Spending tons of time in fsck
for a filesystem we didn't touch isn't time well spent, IMHO.
-Eric
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: Check fs consistency on TEST_DEV only when needed
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 20:52:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53BDF1D2.6000204@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140710010711.GJ4453@dastard>
On 7/9/14, 8:07 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Reducing runtime of the test harness is a good idea, but we should
> not do that if the cost is that it reduces the reliability of error
> detection.
Still, this could have a really big impact, especially on filesystems
with slow fsck.
It'd be great to find a way to make this reliable.
It's kind of a historical accident that "test" is always mounted, but
"scratch" must be _required. What if we added _require_test if we're
going to write to test, and doing so triggers the check?
I'm sure there are other ways around it. Spending tons of time in fsck
for a filesystem we didn't touch isn't time well spent, IMHO.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-10 1:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-24 13:36 [PATCH 1/2] xfstests: Check the file system consistency on SCRATCH_DEV Lukas Czerner
2014-06-24 13:36 ` Lukas Czerner
2014-06-24 13:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: Check fs consistency on TEST_DEV only when needed Lukas Czerner
2014-06-24 13:36 ` Lukas Czerner
2014-07-10 1:07 ` Dave Chinner
2014-07-10 1:07 ` Dave Chinner
2014-07-10 1:52 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2014-07-10 1:52 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-07-10 8:38 ` Lukáš Czerner
2014-07-10 8:38 ` Lukáš Czerner
2014-07-10 20:50 ` Dave Chinner
2014-07-10 20:50 ` Dave Chinner
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=53BDF1D2.6000204@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--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.