From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:24:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id lAN1OTmJ024010 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:24:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:24:25 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Debug - don't exhaustively check the AIL on every operation Message-ID: <20071123012425.GA114266761@sgi.com> References: <20071122005003.GQ114266761@sgi.com> <47462222.9060501@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47462222.9060501@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: David Chinner , xfs-oss , xfs-dev On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:43:14AM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > Looks good Dave. > > There's lots of debug code bound by XFS_TRANS_DEBUG - should we be > enabling this in our QA? No, they are more for validation when you are hacking on the transaction code. The current debug code should detect most problems runtime problems, but if you change the way anything in the logging works you'll be wanting to test your changes with that set (e.g. when we do the transaction rollback stuff). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group