From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Drokin Subject: Re: BTW: 2.4.19-patches-to-come? Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:28:47 +0400 Message-ID: <20020517222846.A1514@namesys.com> References: <200205171736.50971.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <20020517195445.A1032@namesys.com> <200205171905.30804.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200205171905.30804.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dieter N?tzel Cc: Chris Mason , Manuel Krause , ReiserFS List Hello! On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 07:05:30PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote: > > What is the corruption pattern? > Have a look into the two examples. I will, but later, it seems. > > What was the crash, btw? > > Hard power loss? > No. > "Only" hard lookup. Sadly SysReq is not working ;-( And you fix it by "reset switch"? BTW, Was that you with a kernel with lot of patches applied, or you do not use anything strange on your workstations? > > > written before/during crash and rebuild during replay, but it should much > > > more usefull if they were only _REMOVED_ during replay. Because the > > > "next" kernel build can't run smooth without "make clean" or deletion by > > > hand. What do you think? > > These files are not deleted, so why fs should delete these? > Yes, you are right. But semantically they are worthless 'cause they are > "broken"... FS cannot know this. Absolutely cannot. File was created, written into. So file appears after reboot (if transaction in which it was created was commited). BTW, I have a feeling that datalogging patches would help to get rid of garbage in the files, but files still will remain (may be of zero length). > > > Have a look into the falsely "rebuild" broken files in the attachment, > > > too. > > Later today > Hey, it's weekend then...;-) So what? ;) > Happy Whitsun everyone! Hm. What's that? ;) Bye, Oleg