https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=200739 Theodore Tso (tytso@xxxxxxx) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tytso@xxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Theodore Tso (tytso@xxxxxxx) --- Does this actually cause an user-visible problem? If we do readahead for an inode table block never gets used by the user, and that block is never used (perhaps because no inodes have been written using that indoe table block), why should we mark the file system as corrupted? Especially given that with modern block devices, when we *do* write to the inode table block, it will probably use redirect the failed sector to a spare block replacement pool automatically, at which point subsequent reads to that inode table block will be *fine*. So prematurely deciding that just because an speculative, readahead access to a sector returns a media error, is grounds to declare the file system corrupted (which could force a reboot if errors=panic is set), seems to be a massive overreaction. Why do you think we should signal an error in this case? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
