From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:53:00 +0800
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/1] OCFS2: Log -EIO errors just when hit
 them.
In-Reply-To: <49EED761.6090503@oracle.com>
References: <200904170744.n3H7iJac013765@acsinet15.oracle.com>	<49E8F93B.40300@oracle.com>	<49EF3AC7.9050608@oracle.com>
	<49EF4339.4020706@oracle.com> <49EED761.6090503@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <49EF4B6C.40502@oracle.com>
List-Id: <ocfs2-devel.oss.oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com

Hi Tao,

Maybe my post is misleading :)
First thing is that I know the callers has the log. why I post the patch 
is to log more detailed info such block number which callers don't.
Second, my replies are based on 1.2 and 1.4, not mainline. --I didn't 
clarify it, sorry :)

Sunil and Joel,
That bug report is against 1.2.  I think ocfs2_end_buffer_io_sync() is 
able to log the EIOs.
By later bug update, looks like the IO is READA, but 
ocfs2_end_buffer_io_sync() can't dealwith readahead(low lever didn't 
call it or didn't call it with correct param)?

thanks,
wengang.

Tao Ma wrote:
> Hi wengang,
>     I just went through the thread. It looks that Sunil said that 
> "From my scan, at least in mainline, all these EIOs are being logged 
> by the caller. So this patch is not adding any value. "
>
> I guess his meaning is that since all the callers has already logged 
> the -EIO error, your patch does't add any value for it. So you may go 
> in the wrong direction.
>
> Regards,
> Tao
>
> Wengang Wang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed ocfs2_end_buffer_io_sync() is only for 1.2
>> need to do something for 1.4
>>
>> regards,
>> wengang.
>>
>> Wengang Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Sunil and Joel,
>>>
>>> For the EIO log problem, ocfs2_end_buffer_io_sync() is used as the 
>>> callback function b_end_io
>>> for both READ and WRITE.
>>> I noticed that in this function,
>>>
>>> if (!uptodate)
>>>     mlog_errno(-EIO);
>>>
>>> Isn't the 2 lines enough to log EIO errors?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> wengang.
>>>
>>> Sunil Mushran wrote:
>>>  
>>>> I imagine this is for the unlogged EIOs that have been reported.
>>>>
>>>> From my scan, at least in mainline, all these EIOs are being logged
>>>> by the caller. So this patch is not adding any value. Can you double
>>>> check that please?
>>>>
>>>> Now it could be that the reported EIOs are on 1.2/1.4 and that those
>>>> trees are missing the mlogs. In that case, the patch should be 
>>>> specific
>>>> to the tree.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the (u64) should be (unsigned long long). This ensures that
>>>> it compiles warning free on all arches.
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
>>> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
>>> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>>   
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
>> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
>> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel