From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fs Subject: Re: [RFD] What error should FS return when I/O failure occurs? Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:43:00 -0400 Message-ID: <1116344580.2428.7.camel@CoolQ> References: <05May16.114248edt.32448@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel , Kenichi Okuyama Return-path: Received: from ercist.iscas.ac.cn ([159.226.5.94]:8462 "EHLO ercist.iscas.ac.cn") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261247AbVEQEel (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2005 00:34:41 -0400 To: Chris Siebenmann In-Reply-To: <05May16.114248edt.32448@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 11:42, Chris Siebenmann wrote: > You write: > | When I/O failure occurs, there should be some standards which > | define the ONLY error that should be returned from VFS, right? > > In practice there is no standard and there never will be any standard. > In general the only thing code can do on any write error is to abort > the operation, regardless of what errno is. (The exceptions are for > things like nonblocking IO, where 'EAGAIN' and 'EWOULDBLOCK' are not > real errors.) Yes, we're sure to abort the operation, but we can't use exit(EXIT_FAILURE) directly. For HA environment, we should identify the cause of the error, take correspondent action, right? So we need to get the right error. > --- > "I shall clasp my hands together and bow to the corners of the world." > Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds" > cks@utcc.toronto.edu utgpu!cks regards, ---- Qu Fuping