On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 03:49:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So how does XFS decide whether a write should fail and shutdown the > > file system, or just "try forever"? > > Why would it bother? XFS tends to be a filesystem that you'd only use > for core files in environments where you have a system manager that > knows what he is doing. Oh, man, what a troll. Even my *TV* uses XFS. First google reference: http://settorezero.blogspot.com/2010/10/xfs-filesystem-and-samsung-ledtvs.html You won't find a more hostile "pull-the-drive-without-unmounting" environment than a TV. XFS handles this sort of stuff just fine and it has for a long time. > So there, maybe "try forever" is the right > thing to do. You still haven't grasped that there are many different classes of IO errors and that some require different handling to others. :/ > Things are a bit different with some random unreliable USB stick FAT32 > filesystem that just died on you, with a normal user that just removes > the thing or doesn't even notice that the stick is now dead. There the > "try forever" is totally the wrong thing to do. I'm not saying that "try forever" is how all errors should be handled. You are completely focussed on that as the only possible error handling technique that can be used. Stop being stupid! I'm saying that the dirty, uptodate, errored buffer should be handled back to the filesystem so that it can decide what to do with it. For filesystems that can differentiate the types of errors, let them choose how to handle the problem. Those that are unable to handle the error can do the invalidation themselves. One size does not fit all... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
