Re: [PATCH] core: Actually EIO is a fatal error

[Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:00:18 +0200, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 01:42 PM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:25:37 +0200, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >> On 09/21/2012 01:04 PM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >>> As soon as i understand this is just a mistype.
> >>
> >> It's not a typo. By that logic, EILSEQ is fatal too, since it is a
> >> verification failure of read data (so might as well have been an EIO).
> >> Fatal, in this context, means errors that fio can recover from and
> >> continue doing work.
> > Ohh i ment to say that both errors are fatal, but function called
> 
> And I'm saying that NEITHER of them are fatal.
> 
> > td_NON_fatal_error, and it result true in case of EIO or EILSEQ
> > this result continue_on_error logic broken because 
> > io_u.c 1440:
> >        if (icd->error && td_non_fatal_error(icd->error) &&
> >            (td->o.continue_on_error & td_error_type(io_u->ddir,
> >            icd->error))) {
> 
> Right, so if error and error is non-fatal, we continue on that error
> unless told otherwise. It is logged and we continue on our business.
Please dint get me wrong .... but please take a look more carefully

Original code: ((e) == EIO || (e) == EILSEQ)
True for fatal errors, and false for non fatal ones
But function called td_NON_fatal_error()
And it should result opposite result

so my code: (!((e) == EIO || (e) == EILSEQ)) is equivalent of
             (err != EIO) && (err != EILSEQ)

> 
> So I'm a little confused as to why you think the test is reverted...
> 
> > FYI right after i've changed this my test which continuously hit ENOSPC
> > goes forward and provoke panic :)
> > WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:62 __list_del_entry+0x1ee/0x250()
> 
> Heh, always great to trigger kernel bugs with fio :-)
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>