On Mon 28-11-11 11:08:42, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:06:56PM +0800, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > > > Reading Ted's information feed, I tend to disregard the partial write > > > issue: since the "broken" applications will already fail and get > > > punished in various other cases, I don't care adding one more penalty > > > case to them :-P > > > > Just wait until you have a bunch of rabid application programmers, > > questioning your judgement, your morality, and even your paternity. > > :-) > > Ah OK, that sounds frightening. Hmm, till now every one have > acknowledged the possibility of data corruption, only that > people have different perceptions of the severeness. > > Let's rethink things this way: "Is it a _worthwhile_ risk at all?" > I'm afraid not. Considering the origin of this patch > > [BUG] aborted ext4 leads to inifinity loop in balance_dirty_pages > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg28464.html > > I *think* Jan's first patch is already enough for fixing the bug. IWO > the patch we worried/discussed so much is really an optional one. I > would imagine the easy and safe solution is to just drop it. Any > objections? I still think aborting write is a cleaner solution. But I don't want to argue to death about this so if you still don't think it's a good idea, I'll respect your decision. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
