On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 09:18:42PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: [..] > It seems to me you are focussing on code/technologies that exist > today instead of trying to define an architecture that is more > optimal for pmem storage systems. Yes, working code is great, but if > you can't tell people how things like robust error handling and > redundancy are going to work in future then it's going to take > forever for everyone else to handle such errors robustly through the > storage stack... Precisely because higher order redundancy is built on top this baseline. MD-RAID can't do it's error recovery if we don't have -EIO and clear-error-on-write. On the other hand, you're absolutely right that we have a gaping hole on top of the SIGBUS recovery model, and don't have a kernel layer we can interpose on top of DAX to provide some semblance of redundancy. In the meantime, a handful of applications with a team of full-time site-reliability-engineers may be able to plug in external redundancy infrastructure on top of what is defined in these patches. For everyone else, the hard problem, we need to do a lot more thinking about a trap and recover solution. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>