From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B93C433EF for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF0A60F13 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236246AbhIIOUi (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:20:38 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:33264 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239747AbhIIOU0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:20:26 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2502235F; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:19:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1631197156; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sriNlLmhAgsxTy8qI1CXCJu9duBXD/a0PiKU+exUf7Q=; b=ewmZRhOTNctD9GeYgzZ9HHupDBXYqrnONLsIPa5jPRIgFSpz1KHmPqkmEtU21L/LaUUlzx 5amptrcp52ditTTuieeQYiNW+YfQYnpTwL74a08fap1O42a9/Ozcak6/LUFg7yPQ7WkZhd MfrC8/Ktc02XHcxuLPpv/hzbehqaE1g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1631197156; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sriNlLmhAgsxTy8qI1CXCJu9duBXD/a0PiKU+exUf7Q=; b=lAw1EF7cQzgkrtUAsYh3H8hHavExFkqdnBvXJvXiQehI3e6xr7VV0MOu36jJbMK1B+6lLz mnlXZuUj2p6fjAAg== Received: from ds.suse.cz (ds.suse.cz [10.100.12.205]) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4523FA4484; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 10065) id 1ED50DA7A9; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:19:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:19:10 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Anand Jain Cc: fdmanana@kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: remove the failing device argument from btrfs_check_rw_degradable() Message-ID: <20210909141910.GY15306@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Anand Jain , fdmanana@kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <6979a21084ce679d34896cf8092349e845e1843e.1631026981.git.fdmanana@suse.com> <20210907160506.GQ3379@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 10:25:52PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > On 08/09/2021 00:05, David Sterba wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 04:15:50PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > >> From: Filipe Manana > >> > >> Currently all callers of btrfs_check_rw_degradable() pass a NULL value for > >> its 'failing_dev' argument, therefore making it useless. So just remove > >> that argument. > > > > Anand, did you have plans with using the argument? It's been NULL since > > the initial patch > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/00433e34-a56e-3898-80b9-32a304fe32e2@gmx.com/t/#u > > > > as commit 6528b99d3d20 ("btrfs: factor btrfs_check_rw_degradable() to > > check given device") and it was not part of a series. > > I have a local patch which is V9 of this [1] using the 2nd argument of > btrfs_check_rw_degradable(). Essentially to check if the mounted fs > should fail or can continue to write when a disk fails. > > [1] > btrfs: introduce device dynamic state transition to failed > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/20171003155920.24925-2-anand.jain@oracle.com/ > > We need further discussions on this design. I think. Yeah this does not look like a simple feature. I think we can remove the parameter for now and add back eventually.