From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261491AbVFNAJx (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:09:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261668AbVFNAJu (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:09:50 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]:60803 "EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261588AbVFNAIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:08:53 -0400 X-Comment: AT&T Maillennium special handling code - c Message-ID: <42AE1EE4.5090508@namesys.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:03:48 -0700 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Mahoney CC: fs , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , viro VFS , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel , zhiming@admin.iscas.ac.cn, qufuping@ercist.iscas.ac.cn, madsys@ercist.iscas.ac.cn, xuh@nttdata.com.cn, koichi@intellilink.co.jp, kuroiwaj@intellilink.co.jp, okuyama@intellilink.co.jp, matsui_v@valinux.co.jp, kikuchi_v@valinux.co.jp, fernando@intellilink.co.jp, kskmori@intellilink.co.jp, takenakak@intellilink.co.jp, yamaguchi@intellilink.co.jp, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, sct@redhat.com, shaggy@austin.ibm.com, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Reiserfs developers mail-list Subject: Re: [RFD] FS behavior (I/O failure) in kernel summit References: <1118692436.2512.157.camel@CoolQ> <42ADC99D.5000801@namesys.com> <42ADFFD5.1090905@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <42ADFFD5.1090905@suse.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff, would you be willing to make a proposal for what should be done? I would be interested in your suggestions. Jeff Mahoney wrote: > > Hans - > > These tests must have been run on a kernel prior to 2.6.10-rc1. The I/O > error code exhibits behavior similar to ext3, so (1b). There are still > kinks to be worked out, but it's definitely not the "throw up our arms > and give up" that it used to be. > > Implementing behavior 1a for ext3 and reiserfs should be fairly trivial > - it just means that tests to check if the filesystem is in an aborted > state ("shutdown" in xfs terms) need to added to the call path in some > places, and be moved earlier in others. > > -Jeff > > -- > Jeff Mahoney > SuSE Labs