On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:09:59PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Now even if at the moment there were no storage backend where a write > failure can be temporary (which I find hard to believe, but who knows), > a single new driver is enough to expose the problem. Are you confident > enough that no single driver will ever behave this way to make data > integrity depend on the assumption? This is really a philosophical question. It very much simplifiees things if we can make the assumption that a driver that *does* behave this way is **broken**. If the I/O error is temporary, then the driver should simply not complete the write, and wait. If it fails, it should only be because it has timed out on waiting and has assumed that the problem is permanent. Otherwise, every single application is going to have to learn how to deal with temporary errors, and everything that implies (throwing up dialog boxes to the user, who may not be able to do anything --- this is why in the dm-thin case, if you think it should be temporary, dm-thin should be calling out to a usr space program that pages an system administrator; why do you think the process or the user who started the process can do anything about it/) Now, perhaps there ought to be a way for the application to say, "you know, if you are going to have to wait more than <timeval>, don't bother". This might be interesting from a general sense, even for working hardware, since there are HDD's with media extensions where you can tell the disk drive not to bother with the I/O operation if it's going to take more than XX milliseconds, and if there is a way to reflect that back to userspace, that can be useful for other applications, such as video or other soft realtime programs. But forcing every single application to have to deal with retries in the case of temporary errors? That way lies madness, and there's no way we can get to all of the applications to make them do the right thing. > Note that I didn't think of a "keep-data-after-write-error" flag, > neither per-fd nor per-file, because I assumed that everyone would want > it as long as there is some hope that the data could still be > successfully written out later. But not everyone is going to know to do this. This is why the retry really should be done by the device driver, and if it fails, everyone lives will be much simpler if the failure should be a permanent failure where there is no hope. Are there use cases you are concerned about where this model wouldn't suit? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
