On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:18:37PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > I would leave it as it is unless users start to complain. Yes, the > test does this on purpose. > Adding such code/state seems weird to me, instead I would change the > rate limit state so that the messages would repeat much less > frequently. The difference to the state tracking is that the warning would be printed repeatedly, which I find unnecessary and based on past user feedback, there will be somebody asking about that. The rate limiting can also skip a message that can be for a different subvolume, so this makes it harder to diagnose problems. Current state is not satisfactory at least for me because it hurts testing, the test runs for about 2 hours now, besides the log bloat. The number of messages that slipped through ratelimiting is now over 11k, which is roughly 150k messages printed overall.
