On 2.07.2018 14:07, David Disseldorp wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:43:20 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>> On 2.07.2018 12:28, Su Yue wrote:
>>> Since lowmem repair is dangerous, it should remind user more obviously.
>>> The patchset add 10 seconds delay like btrfs balance and add am option
>>> '--force-repair-lowmem' to skip the delay.
>>
>> IMO this is the wrong way to approach a dangerous option. If it's so
>> dangerous it needs to be written in the documentation explicitly this is
>> so. If someone wants to use lowmem then they should explicitly set
>> --mode lowmem. So I'm inclined to NACK this patch.
>
> AFAICT it's already documented as "experimental" in the manpage, but the
> usage flag appears to have been dropped as part of refactoring for
> 87c1bd13c1fca430c3dbf0da62e9aa33bde609c8 . If nobody's working on a fix,
> and lowmem removal isn't an option, then please consider adding the usage
> flag back, e.g.
lowmem seems to be here to stay and it seems to be more useful than
original mode. So your patch is acceptable.
> --- a/check/main.c
> +++ b/check/main.c
> @@ -9386,7 +9386,7 @@ const char * const cmd_check_usage[] = {
> " original - read inodes and extents to memory (requires",
> " more memory, does less IO)",
> " lowmem - try to use less memory but read blocks again",
> - " when needed",
> + " when needed (experimental)",
> "--check-data-csum verify checksums of data blocks",
> "-Q|--qgroup-report print a report on qgroup consistency",
> "-E|--subvol-extents <subvolid>",
>
> Cheers, David
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
