Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:42:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:42:43 -0400 Received: from roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com ([24.169.102.121]:9233 "EHLO roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:42:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:41:25 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Hans Reiser , Chris Wedgwood cc: Rik van Riel , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ReiserFS / 2.4.6 / Data Corruption Message-ID: <687650000.996586885@tiny> In-Reply-To: <3B668FA2.5E76BE1E@namesys.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On Tuesday, July 31, 2001 02:59:46 PM +0400 Hans Reiser wrote: [ CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK ] > Last I ran benchmarks the performance cost was 30-40%, but this was some > time ago. I think that the coders have been quietly culling some checks > out of the FS, and so it does not cost as much anymore. I would prefer > that the "excesive" checks had stayed in. > > Sigh, I see I cannot persuade in this argument. It seems Linus is right, > and debugging checks don't belong in debugged code even if they would make > it easier for persons hacking on the code to debug their latest hacks. > In the end, the distributions are responsible for their own quality control, and they are free to turn on whatever debugging features they like. You can yell, scream, call them names, and in general piss them off however you like and they will still be absolutely correct in turning on whatever debugging check they feel is important. The right way to deal with this is ask why they think it's important to turn on the checks. The goal behind code under CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK is to add extra runtime consistency checks, but without CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK on, the code should still make sure it isn't hosing the disk. In other words, the goal is like this: if (some_error) { #ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK panic("some_error") ; #else gracefully_recover #endif There are places CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK does extra scanning of the metadata and such, but all of these are supposed to be things that can be recovered from with the debugging off. Anything else is a bug. -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/