On Monday 23 June 2008 22:31, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 23-06-08 21:46:27, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I don't know why it was done like this, or if anybody actually tested > > any of it, but AFAIKS the best way to fix this is to simply not > > clear any uptodate bits upon write errors. > > That would be non-trivial effort because there are lots of places which > do things like: > wait_on_buffer(bh); > if (!buffer_uptodate) > /* IO error handling */ > > But what you say sounds like a reasonable thing from a logical > perspective. For reads, that's obviously a common pattern, although even that's broken in some cases where it is used. But definitely uptodate should not be set on a read error (although does it need to be explicitly cleared? I would hope we don't submit a read anyway if the page/buffer is already uptodate). But you're right, even changing this for writes would not be a trivial effort. -- 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
