Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 04-06-08 18:51:55, Theodore Tso wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:58:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:22:02 -0400 >>>Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:19:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>But afaict this patch changes things so that if we get a write failure >>>in a data block we make the entire fs read-only. Which, as I said, is >>>often "dead box". >>> >>>This seems like a quite major policy change to me. My patch doesn't change the policy. JBD aborts the journal when it detects I/O error in file data since 2.6.11. Perhaps this patch: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=110483888632225 I just added missing error checkings. >>Agreed, and it's not appropriate. I could imagine that for some >>setups it is the right policy, but the kernel should not be setting >>policy like this. Maybe as a new tunable in the superblock, or maybe >>via a round-trip to userspace via a uevent, but certainly not as the >>new default behavior. > > Yes, I believe a tunable in superblock controlling how do we behave on > EIO error in data block would be the best solution. I agree. I understood that there is a case where we don't want to make the fs read-only when writing file data failed. OTOH there are people who want to make the fs read-only to avoid the damage from expanding. Introducing the tunable would be better. I'm going to send a patch to make this behavior tunable if some of you agree on this way. Thanks, -- Hidehiro Kawai Hitachi, Systems Development Laboratory Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
