On 09/21/2012 01:42 PM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:25:37 +0200, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09/21/2012 01:04 PM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>>> As soon as i understand this is just a mistype.
>>
>> It's not a typo. By that logic, EILSEQ is fatal too, since it is a
>> verification failure of read data (so might as well have been an EIO).
>> Fatal, in this context, means errors that fio can recover from and
>> continue doing work.
> Ohh i ment to say that both errors are fatal, but function called
And I'm saying that NEITHER of them are fatal.
> td_NON_fatal_error, and it result true in case of EIO or EILSEQ
> this result continue_on_error logic broken because
> io_u.c 1440:
> if (icd->error && td_non_fatal_error(icd->error) &&
> (td->o.continue_on_error & td_error_type(io_u->ddir,
> icd->error))) {
Right, so if error and error is non-fatal, we continue on that error
unless told otherwise. It is logged and we continue on our business.
So I'm a little confused as to why you think the test is reverted...
> FYI right after i've changed this my test which continuously hit ENOSPC
> goes forward and provoke panic :)
> WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:62 __list_del_entry+0x1ee/0x250()
Heh, always great to trigger kernel bugs with fio :-)
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
