Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree

Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree

[Hidehiro Kawai]

Hello Andrew,

akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:

> The patch titled
>      jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
> has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
>      jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch
> 
> This patch was dropped because I don't think we want to go read-only on file data write errors
> 
> The current -mm tree may be found at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
> From: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>

This patch series doesn't change the behavior on file data write
errors as I stated before, but we found that the current behavior has
been made accidentally.  So yesterday I sent an additional patch(*)
which removes the invocation of journal_abort() and thus stop making
the fs read-only on file data write errors, but it seems to be late
for the -mm release preparation.

  Patch(*) can be found at:
  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121300618614453&w=2

Anyway, as this patch series was dropped from -mm, I'm going to
send a revised version.

I plan to separate these pathces into three patche set. 
The first patch (set) corrects the current behavior in ordered
writes, it means it removes the invocation of journal_abort() on file
data write errors.  It is the almost same as the patch(*).
The second patch set fixes error handlings for metadata writes and
checkpointing.  It should be applied independently of the first
patch set, and it is the same as PATCH 3/5 to 5/5.
The third patch set makes "abort the journal on file data write errors"
tunable for mission critical users.  Of course, this feature depends
on the first patch set.

Any comments?

Regards,
-- 
Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Systems Development Laboratory
Linux Technology Center

Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:51:35 +0900 Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com> wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
> 
> akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> 
> > The patch titled
> >      jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
> > has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
> >      jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch
> > 
> > This patch was dropped because I don't think we want to go read-only on file data write errors
> > 
> > The current -mm tree may be found at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
> > From: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
> 
> This patch series doesn't change the behavior on file data write
> errors as I stated before, but we found that the current behavior has
> been made accidentally.  So yesterday I sent an additional patch(*)
> which removes the invocation of journal_abort() and thus stop making
> the fs read-only on file data write errors, but it seems to be late
> for the -mm release preparation.
> 
>   Patch(*) can be found at:
>   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121300618614453&w=2
> 
> Anyway, as this patch series was dropped from -mm, I'm going to
> send a revised version.
> 
> I plan to separate these pathces into three patche set. 
> The first patch (set) corrects the current behavior in ordered
> writes, it means it removes the invocation of journal_abort() on file
> data write errors.  It is the almost same as the patch(*).
> The second patch set fixes error handlings for metadata writes and
> checkpointing.  It should be applied independently of the first
> patch set, and it is the same as PATCH 3/5 to 5/5.
> The third patch set makes "abort the journal on file data write errors"
> tunable for mission critical users.  Of course, this feature depends
> on the first patch set.
> 

That sounds like a good plan, thanks.

Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree

[Mike Snitzer]

gah, I had html enabled... resend.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:51:35 +0900 Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Andrew,
>> >
>> > akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>> >
>> > > The patch titled
>> > >      jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
>> > > has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
>> > >      jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch
>> > >
>> > > This patch was dropped because I don't think we want to go read-only on file data write errors
>> > >
>> > > The current -mm tree may be found at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Subject: jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
>> > > From: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
>> >
>> > This patch series doesn't change the behavior on file data write
>> > errors as I stated before, but we found that the current behavior has
>> > been made accidentally.  So yesterday I sent an additional patch(*)
>> > which removes the invocation of journal_abort() and thus stop making
>> > the fs read-only on file data write errors, but it seems to be late
>> > for the -mm release preparation.
>> >
>> >   Patch(*) can be found at:
>> >   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121300618614453&w=2
>> >
>> > Anyway, as this patch series was dropped from -mm, I'm going to
>> > send a revised version.
>> >
>> > I plan to separate these pathces into three patche set.
>> > The first patch (set) corrects the current behavior in ordered
>> > writes, it means it removes the invocation of journal_abort() on file
>> > data write errors.  It is the almost same as the patch(*).
>> > The second patch set fixes error handlings for metadata writes and
>> > checkpointing.  It should be applied independently of the first
>> > patch set, and it is the same as PATCH 3/5 to 5/5.
>> > The third patch set makes "abort the journal on file data write errors"
>> > tunable for mission critical users.  Of course, this feature depends
>> > on the first patch set.
>> >
>>
>> That sounds like a good plan, thanks.
>
> Hidehiro and Andrew,
>
> The first patch(set) has been in -mm with the following patches:
> jbd-dont-abort-if-flushing-file-data-failed.patch
> jbd-dont-abort-if-flushing-file-data-failed-fix.patch
>
> "PATCH 3/5 to 5/5" haven't made their way into -mm; nor has the tunable "abort the journal on file data write errors".  Where do things stand on this work?
>
> Given the potential for corruption and the fact that -mm's series file justifiably has a place-holder comment of "jbd write-error stuff: scary" I'm wondering: how soon will all associated fixes be included in -mm?
>
> regards,
> Mike

Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:08:24 -0400 "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:51:35 +0900 Hidehiro Kawai <
> > hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Andrew,
> > >
> > > akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > The patch titled
> > > >      jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
> > > > has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
> > > >      jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch
> > > >
> > > > This patch was dropped because I don't think we want to go read-only on
> > file data write errors
> > > >
> > > > The current -mm tree may be found at
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/<http://userweb.kernel.org/%7Eakpm/mmotm/>
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Subject: jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
> > > > From: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
> > >
> > > This patch series doesn't change the behavior on file data write
> > > errors as I stated before, but we found that the current behavior has
> > > been made accidentally.  So yesterday I sent an additional patch(*)
> > > which removes the invocation of journal_abort() and thus stop making
> > > the fs read-only on file data write errors, but it seems to be late
> > > for the -mm release preparation.
> > >
> > >   Patch(*) can be found at:
> > >   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121300618614453&w=2
> > >
> > > Anyway, as this patch series was dropped from -mm, I'm going to
> > > send a revised version.
> > >
> > > I plan to separate these pathces into three patche set.
> > > The first patch (set) corrects the current behavior in ordered
> > > writes, it means it removes the invocation of journal_abort() on file
> > > data write errors.  It is the almost same as the patch(*).
> > > The second patch set fixes error handlings for metadata writes and
> > > checkpointing.  It should be applied independently of the first
> > > patch set, and it is the same as PATCH 3/5 to 5/5.
> > > The third patch set makes "abort the journal on file data write errors"
> > > tunable for mission critical users.  Of course, this feature depends
> > > on the first patch set.
> > >
> >
> > That sounds like a good plan, thanks.
> 
> 
> Hidehiro and Andrew,
> 
> The first patch(set) has been in -mm with the following patches:
> jbd-dont-abort-if-flushing-file-data-failed.patch
> jbd-dont-abort-if-flushing-file-data-failed-fix.patch
> 
> "PATCH 3/5 to 5/5" haven't made their way into -mm; nor has the tunable
> "abort the journal on file data write errors".  Where do things stand on
> this work?
> 
> Given the potential for corruption and the fact that -mm's series file
> justifiably has a place-holder comment of "jbd write-error stuff: scary" I'm
> wondering: how soon will all associated fixes be included in -mm?

I assume they'll be resent if/when they're ready?

Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree

[Hidehiro Kawai]

Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:51:35 +0900 Hidehiro Kawai <
>>hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello Andrew,
>>>
>>>akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The patch titled
>>>>     jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
>>>>has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
>>>>     jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch
>>>>
>>>>This patch was dropped because I don't think we want to go read-only on
>>
>>file data write errors
>>
>>>>The current -mm tree may be found at
>>
>>http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/<http://userweb.kernel.org/%7Eakpm/mmotm/>
>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Subject: jbd: strictly check for write errors on data buffers
>>>>From: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
>>>
>>>This patch series doesn't change the behavior on file data write
>>>errors as I stated before, but we found that the current behavior has
>>>been made accidentally.  So yesterday I sent an additional patch(*)
>>>which removes the invocation of journal_abort() and thus stop making
>>>the fs read-only on file data write errors, but it seems to be late
>>>for the -mm release preparation.
>>>
>>>  Patch(*) can be found at:
>>>  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121300618614453&w=2
>>>
>>>Anyway, as this patch series was dropped from -mm, I'm going to
>>>send a revised version.
>>>
>>>I plan to separate these pathces into three patche set.
>>>The first patch (set) corrects the current behavior in ordered
>>>writes, it means it removes the invocation of journal_abort() on file
>>>data write errors.  It is the almost same as the patch(*).
>>>The second patch set fixes error handlings for metadata writes and
>>>checkpointing.  It should be applied independently of the first
>>>patch set, and it is the same as PATCH 3/5 to 5/5.
>>>The third patch set makes "abort the journal on file data write errors"
>>>tunable for mission critical users.  Of course, this feature depends
>>>on the first patch set.
>>>
>>
>>That sounds like a good plan, thanks.
> 
> Hidehiro and Andrew,
> 
> The first patch(set) has been in -mm with the following patches:
> jbd-dont-abort-if-flushing-file-data-failed.patch
> jbd-dont-abort-if-flushing-file-data-failed-fix.patch
> 
> "PATCH 3/5 to 5/5" haven't made their way into -mm; nor has the tunable
> "abort the journal on file data write errors".  Where do things stand on
> this work?
> 
> Given the potential for corruption and the fact that -mm's series file
> justifiably has a place-holder comment of "jbd write-error stuff: scary" I'm
> wondering: how soon will all associated fixes be included in -mm?

Hello Mike,

Sorry for my late work.  I'm going to send these two patch set soon,
but I have a trouble, 2.6.26-rc8-mm1 doesn't boot on my box.
So it may a bit more delay.

Regards,
-- 
Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Systems Development Laboratory
Linux Technology Center