From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs: Make write(2) interruptible by a signal
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:08:42 +0800
Message-ID: <20111128030842.GA2804@localhost>
References: <1321441935-6802-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <1321441935-6802-3-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <20111116114421.GA9098@localhost>
 <20111122142805.4e59faae.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <20111123090533.GA22420@localhost>
 <20111123130803.GD9775@quack.suse.cz>
 <20111123132758.GA25373@localhost>
 <7B2683F5-A926-44CA-9BA8-F71720E50A77@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kazuya Mio <k-mio@sx.jp.nec.com>,
	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:5218 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756020Ab1K1DIr (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:08:47 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7B2683F5-A926-44CA-9BA8-F71720E50A77@mit.edu>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:06:56PM +0800, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Reading Ted's information feed, I tend to disregard the partial write
> > issue: since the "broken" applications will already fail and get
> > punished in various other cases, I don't care adding one more penalty
> > case to them :-P
> 
> Just wait until you have a bunch of rabid application programmers,
> questioning your judgement, your morality, and even your paternity.
> :-)

Ah OK, that sounds frightening. Hmm, till now every one have
acknowledged the possibility of data corruption, only that
people have different perceptions of the severeness.

Let's rethink things this way: "Is it a _worthwhile_ risk at all?"
I'm afraid not. Considering the origin of this patch

[BUG] aborted ext4 leads to inifinity loop in balance_dirty_pages
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg28464.html

I *think* Jan's first patch is already enough for fixing the bug. IWO
the patch we worried/discussed so much is really an optional one. I
would imagine the easy and safe solution is to just drop it. Any
objections?

Thanks,
Fengguang