> >> >> Past discussion about this issue is as follows. >> http://marc.info/?t=119343431200004&r=1&w=2 >> http://marc.info/?t=112656762800002&r=1&w=2 >> >> 2, invalidate_inode_pages2_range() sets ret=-EIO when >> invalidate_complete_page2() >> fails, but this ret is cleared if do_launder_page() succeed on a page of >> next index. > >Oops. That's too bad. So maybe we should fix it by not stomping on >that return code? > > ret2 = do_launder() > if (ret2 == 0) > ret2 = invalidate() > if (ret == 0) > ret = ret2 > >I'd be surprised if we ever wanted to mask an -EIO when later pages >laundered successfully. This can preserve ret of -EIO. But it cannot be distinguished between the error of invalidation and other error only by this fix. >> I solved problems above by introducing invalidate_inode_pages3_range() >> and falling >> through to buffered I/O when invalidation of a page failed. > >Well, I like the idea of more intelligently dealing with the known >problem between dio and ext3. I'm not sure that falling back to >buffered is right. In the past discussion above, it was said that dio was a sort of best effort function. So dio falls back to buffered IO when writing to hall, I think. My idea is that this notion applies to this issue. > >> We can distinguish between failure of page invalidation and other errors >> with the return value of invalidate_inode_pages3_range(). > >I'm not sure duplicating the invalidation loop into a new function is >the right thing. Maybe we'd just tweak inode_pages2 to indicate to the >caller the specific failing circumstances somehow. Maybe. It will be better that adding one parameter to invalidate_inode_pages2_range so that caller can deal with a number of cases. - 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
