On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 06:00:05PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > IMHO, and I've said it before, the mount flag which Bernd requests > already exists, namely 'errors=', both as mount option and as > persistent default, but it is not enforced correctly on mount time. > If an administrator decides that the correct behavior when error is > detected is abort or remount-ro, what's the sense it letting the > filesystem mount read-write without fixing the problem? Again, consider the case of the root filesystem containing an error. When the error is first discovered during the source of the system's operation, and it's set to errors=panic, you want to immediately reboot the system. But then, when root file system is mounted, it would be bad to have the system immediately panic again. Instead, what you want to have happen is to allow e2fsck to run, correct the file system errors, and then system can go back to normal operation. So the current behavior was deliberately designed to be the way that it is, and the difference is between "what do you do when you come across a file system error", which is what the errors= mount option is all about, and "this file system has some kind of error associated with it". Just because it has an error associated with it does not mean that immediately rebooting is the right thing to do, even if the file system is set to "errors=panic". In fact, in the case of a root file system, it is manifestly the wrong thing to do. If we did what you suggested, then the system would be trapped in a reboot loop forever. - Ted -- 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
