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 12:55:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1116348944.2428.42.camel@CoolQ> References: <75D9B5F4E50C8B4BB27622BD06C2B82B2264F6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> 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]:16910 "EHLO ercist.iscas.ac.cn") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261164AbVEQFrx (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2005 01:47:53 -0400 To: "Hua Zhong (hzhong)" In-Reply-To: <75D9B5F4E50C8B4BB27622BD06C2B82B2264F6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 01:36, Hua Zhong (hzhong) wrote: > > What you said is based on the FS implementor's perspective. > > But from user's perspective, they open a file with O_RDWR, get a > > success, then write returns EROFS? > > Besides, EXT3 ALWAYS return EROFS for the 1st and 2nd case, even > > you specify errors=continue, things are still the same. > > Which version of kernel you are using? My test environment is based on 2.6.11 kernel > It was probably the case in kernel before 2.4.20. The old ext3 had a > problem that it ignored IO error at journal commit time. I submitted a > patch to fix that around the time of 2.4.20. 2.6 should be fine too, > unless someone else broke it again. > > Hua