Hi, On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:16:24PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > IO error handling in the core mm/fs still doesn't seem perfect, but with > > the recent round of patches and this one, it should be getting on the > > right track. > > > > I kind of get the feeling some people would rather forget about all this > > and brush it under the carpet. Hopefully I'm mistaken, but if anybody > > disagrees with my assertion that error handling, and data integrity > > semantics are first-class correctness issues, and therefore are more > > important than all other non-correctness problems... speak now and let's > > discuss that, please. > > > > Otherwise, unless anybody sees obvious problems with this, hopefully it > > can go into -mm for some wider testing (I've tested it with a few filesystems > > so far and no immediate problems) > > I think the first step to get these more robust in the future would be to > have a standard regression test testing these paths. Otherwise it'll > bit-rot sooner or later again. > > -Andi > I have a plan to (at some stage, when I get some time!) create some mechanism which will allow the mounting of multiple GFS2 filesystems on a single device, on the same node. i.e. like a cluster but multiple mounts from a single node. Currently we can get half way there by "cloning" a block device with dm, but our locking doesn't support that configuration at the moment. Given that, it should then be possible to run cluster tests on a single node across several mounts of the same filesystem, and thus allow much easier testing (there is of course no practical reason to allow such a configuration aside from testing), Steve. -- 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
