From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cust-95-128-94-82.breedbanddelft.nl ([95.128.94.82]:52658 "EHLO cust-95-128-94-82.breedbanddelft.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726052AbeIDUti (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2018 16:49:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 18:23:48 +0200 From: Rogier Wolff To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Jeff Layton , =?utf-8?B?54Sm5pmT5Yas?= , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: POSIX violation by writeback error Message-ID: <20180904162348.GN17123@BitWizard.nl> References: <20180904075347.GH11854@BitWizard.nl> <82ffc434137c2ca47a8edefbe7007f5cbecd1cca.camel@redhat.com> <20180904161203.GD17478@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180904161203.GD17478@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 12:12:03PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Well, I think the point was that in the above examples you'd prefer that > the read just fail--no need to keep the data. A bit marking the file > (or even the entire filesystem) unreadable would satisfy posix, I guess. > Whether that's practical, I don't know. When you would do it like that (mark the whole filesystem as "in error") things go from bad to worse even faster. The Linux kernel tries to keep the system up even in the face of errors. With that suggestion, having one application run into a writeback error would effectively crash the whole system because the filesystem may be the root filesystem and stuff like "sshd" that you need to diagnose the problem needs to be read from the disk.... Roger. -- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** ** Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.