[getting back to this...]
On 19 May 2017, Shaohua Li told this:
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:31:23AM +0100, Nix wrote:
quoted
On 19 May 2017, NeilBrown verbalised:
quoted
we'd probably make the list of inconsistencies appear in a
sysfs file. That would be less 'crappy'. But as I say, I don't think
we really want to do that.
Aren't sysfs files in effect length-limited to one page (or at least
length-limited by virtue of being stored in memory?) It seems to me this
would just bring the same problem ratelimit is solving right back again,
except a sysfs file doesn't have a logging daemon sucking the contents
out constantly so you can overwrite your old output without worrying.
(And there is no other daemon running to do that, except mdadm in
monitor mode, which might not be running and really this job feels out
of scope for it anyway.)
No, my question is not the print is ratelimited. The problem is dmesg isn't a
good way to communicate info to userspace. You can easily lose all dmesg info
with a simple 'dmesg -c'. sysfs file is more reliable. Length-limited isn't a
problem, as you said, if there are a lot of mismatch, the array is toast.
I agree that in future having a mechanism for reporting this more easily
usable by programs would be good, and sysfs does seem like just such a
mechanism.
--
NULL && (void)