[ You guys were on this original thread.. ] Re: http://markmail.org/message/jcku5vo5grcjjd3s#query:+page:1+mid:ws2wkcj66ucozlnd+state:results Maybe you could explain why on earth would you want this configurable? I think it's a horrible idea to make the default to ignore write errors, and still a bad idea to even make this an option. Do people really want data corruption and a log message rather than a a clean way to recover from such an error, depending on the cause of it? Aborting on data write error: User can fix why it can't write (maybe the bus just went to lunch), remount-rw or reboot and the journal will replay and the file system will be consistent, data and metadata, just as if the power had failed. Not aborting on data write error: User loses data. File system gets very confused. What am I missing? Simon- On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 06:27:59PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 18-12-08 09:18:25, Simon Kirby wrote: > > > Cool, but one question.. Can you think of a case where anyone would ever > > want data_err=ignore? > > > > Should this really be a knob? > > Originally, we changed the behavior unconditionally but then someone came > up with some reasonable argument why it should be tunable. I don't remember > it exactly, sorry :). > > Honza -- 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
