Fixes for spurious failures of resilver_restart_001 test

[PrivatePuffin]

This opens a PR on the fix by @jwpoduska for reference and testing purposes.
If he wants to open another himself i'll close this one.

Signed-off-by: John Poduska [email protected]
Closes #9677

Motivation, Context and Description

Two issues were found:

• The event log wasn't large enough, so resilver events were missing

• One 'zpool sync' wasn't enough for resilver to start after zinject

• Also include some grammar fixes for comments.

For more information see:
Issue: #9677

How Has This Been Tested?

Not yet

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
• Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

• My code follows the ZFS on Linux code style requirements.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the contributing document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #9701 into master will decrease coverage by <1%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #9701    +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage      79%      79%   -<1%     
========================================
  Files         418      418            
  Lines      123572   123572            
========================================
- Hits        98121    98057    -64     
- Misses      25451    25515    +64

Flag	Coverage Δ
#kernel	80% <ø> (ø)	⬇️
#user	67% <ø> (ø)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0dcef9b...8fcd29b. Read the comment docs.

[jwpoduska]

Yup, why don't you close this, it seems like bad form.

[PrivatePuffin]

If he wants to open another himself i'll close this one.

I don't care about "form", if you open one i'll ofc close this one...
However, yours has been available for days now and is nowhere to be seen.
Considering its CDDL, i'm free to post it as a PR.

Ontopic:
Fix seems to pass all tests, which is a big Yeay.

[jwpoduska]

Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but it seems that github won't let me create a new PR with this one open.

[PrivatePuffin]

Strange, i'll look into that one day...

[behlendorf]

@Ornias1993 actually because of how Github handles PR metadata it's logistically helpful to the maintainer if they're opened by the original author. Otherwise, the "Author" field in the commit will be set incorrectly when merging through the web interface. As long as the original author is still active it's best to let them open the PR.