From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch] fs: improved handling of page and buffer IO errors Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:16:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87mygxexev.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <20081021112137.GB12329@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:34856 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753503AbYJUQQY (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:16:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081021112137.GB12329@wotan.suse.de> (Nick Piggin's message of "Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:21:37 +0200") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nick Piggin writes: > IO error handling in the core mm/fs still doesn't seem perfect, but with > the recent round of patches and this one, it should be getting on the > right track. > > I kind of get the feeling some people would rather forget about all this > and brush it under the carpet. Hopefully I'm mistaken, but if anybody > disagrees with my assertion that error handling, and data integrity > semantics are first-class correctness issues, and therefore are more > important than all other non-correctness problems... speak now and let's > discuss that, please. > > Otherwise, unless anybody sees obvious problems with this, hopefully it > can go into -mm for some wider testing (I've tested it with a few filesystems > so far and no immediate problems) I think the first step to get these more robust in the future would be to have a standard regression test testing these paths. Otherwise it'll bit-rot sooner or later again. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com