Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 4/5] f2fs: get rid of stale fault injection code

[Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>]

On 2022/4/6 11:01, Yufen Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022/4/1 16:28, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2022/4/1 15:19, Yufen Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel wrote:
>>> Nowly, we can use new fault injection framework. Just delete the
>>> stale fault injection code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c |  2 +-
>>>   fs/f2fs/f2fs.h       | 51 ++----------------------------------------
>>>   fs/f2fs/super.c      | 53 --------------------------------------------
>>>   fs/f2fs/sysfs.c      | 23 -------------------
>>>   4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-)
>>>
> 
> ...
> 
>>>               break;
>>> @@ -1963,14 +1920,6 @@ static int f2fs_show_options(struct seq_file *seq, struct dentry *root)
>>>       if (F2FS_IO_SIZE_BITS(sbi))
>>>           seq_printf(seq, ",io_bits=%u",
>>>                   F2FS_OPTION(sbi).write_io_size_bits);
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION
>>> -    if (test_opt(sbi, FAULT_INJECTION)) {
>>> -        seq_printf(seq, ",fault_injection=%u",
>>> -                F2FS_OPTION(sbi).fault_info.inject_rate);
>>> -        seq_printf(seq, ",fault_type=%u",
>>> -                F2FS_OPTION(sbi).fault_info.inject_type);
>>> -    }
>>> -#endif
>>
>> This will cause regression due to it breaks application usage w/ -o
>> fault_* mountoption..., I don't think this is the right way.
> 
> 
> Thanks for catching this. I admit it's a problem. But, IMO fault_* mount
> option are mostly been used in test, not in actual product. So, I think
> it may just affect some test applications. With the common fault injection
> framework, it can be more easy and flexible to do fault injection test.
> Therefore, I want to remove the two mount options directly.
> 
> If you really worried about compatibility, how about just reserving the
> two inject_* options but without doing any thing for them. We actually
> configure fault injections by debugfs in this patch.
> 
> Or do you have more better suggestion?

Could you please consider to keep original logic of f2fs fault injection
if user use inject_* options, otherwise following common fault injection
framework?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> Yufen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel