From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o339YoBK034764 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 04:34:51 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BB603148279F for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 02:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id P3h9X2jFVxQNIaHw for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 05:36:38 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] xfs: add log item recovery tracing Message-ID: <20100403093638.GE20166@infradead.org> References: <1270125691-29266-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1270125691-29266-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1270125691-29266-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:41:27PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > Currently there is no tracing in log recovery, so it is difficult to > determine what is going on when something goes wrong. > > Add tracing for log item recovery to provide visibility into the log > recovery process. The tracing added shows regions being extracted > from the log transactions and added to the transaction hash forming > recovery items, followed by the reordering, cancelling and finally > recovery of the items. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > --- > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_trace.c | 3 + > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_trace.h | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.h | 2 +- > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 44 ++++++++++-- > 4 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > +#define XFS_LOG_ITEM_TYPE \ > + { 0x1236, "XFS_LI_EFI" }, \ > + { 0x1237, "XFS_LI_EFD" }, \ > + { 0x1238, "XFS_LI_IUNLINK" }, \ > + { 0x123b, "XFS_LI_INODE" }, \ > + { 0x123c, "XFS_LI_BUF" }, \ > + { 0x123d, "XFS_LI_DQUOT" }, \ > + { 0x123e, "XFS_LI_QUOTAOFF" } For the other trace events I kept these close to the defintion of these flags. Is there a good reason you use the numerical and not hte symbolic names on the left side? The rest of the patch looks good to me. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs