On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Nick" == Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Nick> Also I don't think we can deal with memory errors and scribbles > Nick> just by crcing dirty data. The calculations generating the data > Nick> could get corrupted. > > Yep, the goal is to make the window as small as possible. > > > Nick> Data can be corrupted on its way back from the device to > Nick> userspace. > > We also get a CRC back from the storage. So the (integrity-aware) > application is also able to check on read. Well that's nice :) > Nick> Obviously this feature is being pushed by databases and such that > Nick> really want to pass checksums all the way from userspace. Block > Nick> retrying is _not_ needed or wanted here of course. > > Nope. The integrity error is bubbled all the way up to the database and > we can decide to retry, recreate or error out depending on what we find > when we do validation checks on the data buffer and the integrity > metadata. By block retrying, I just meant the bounce / re-checksum approach. -- 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
