On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:51:20PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:53:25AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 01:06:29PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 02:53:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/15 2:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > Oh well, even more spam during xfstest runs :)
> > > >
> > > > Heh, but no review...?
> > > >
> > > > I could be talked out of it, if people think it's not useful
> > > > enough.
> > >
> > > I can't really get excited enough either way to give a review or nak..
> > >
> > Heh, what verbosity is xfs_notice()? Maybe using debug level would be
> > better?
> The context Eric and I wanted to see this was when triaging bugs on
> production systems. e.g. to know if someone unmounted a shut down
> filesystem and tried to repair it before rebooting the system...
I guess that makes sense on a clean reboot, less so if the shutdown is a
rootfs and leads to a panic or something of that sort (and what does a
umount matter once the fs is shutdown?).
Anyways, it's not a common operation and if the extra xfstests logging
is the most significant tradeoff then it seems harmless to me:
Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Dave Chinner
> xfs mailing list