On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:29:48 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 08:33:27PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Looking at the code paths touched by patch you referenced, you are > correct. And Andrew even signed off on it. :-) > > But if someone was only examining the patch, it wasn't obvious that > the journal was getting aborted when the JBD layer was forcing buffers > from t_sync_datalist to disk. So I suspect the change went in without > proper consideration of the net effect. You just called it out > explicitly in the subject line, which caused Andrew to ask some good > questions; questions that weren't asked in 2005. Sigh. An object lesson in the value of good changelogging :( I guess we need to undo this. And yes, propagating errors into AS_EIO is the way. I guess that's safe without holding lock_page(), as long as the bh is pinned. -- 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
