On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If the journal doesn't abort when it gets an IO error in file data > blocks, the file data corruption will spread silently. Because > most of applications and commands do buffered writes without fsync(), > they don't notice the IO error. It's scary for mission critical > systems. On the other hand, if the journal aborts whenever it gets > an IO error in file data blocks, the system will easily become > inoperable. So this patch introduces a filesystem option to > determine whether it aborts the journal or just call printk() when > it gets an IO error in file data. > > If you mount a ext3 fs with data_err=abort option, it aborts on file > data write error. If you mount it with data_err=ignore, it doesn't > abort, just call printk(). data_err=abort is default, because > people have used this error handling policy for three years. Hidehiro, Thanks for making this configurable! But given how surprised many of us were when we found out that jbd/ext3 has been aborting on file data blocks isn't this our chance to correct that long-standing oversight? Shouldn't the default be data_err=ignore? Or would changing this behavior cause more harm than good? I don't feel strongly either way, having the "data_err" option makes this issue moot for me, but I figured I'd raise the question (in the interest of review). Mike -- 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
