* Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree
[not found] ` <170fa0d20807140708k46f86ac1tfee50d3fa14e3e41@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2008-07-14 14:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2008-07-14 16:15 ` Andrew Morton
2008-07-15 2:06 ` Hidehiro Kawai
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mike Snitzer @ 2008-07-14 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hidehiro Kawai, Andrew Morton
Cc: jack, linux-ext4, linux-kernel, Satoshi OSHIMA, sugita
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree
[not found] ` <170fa0d20807140708k46f86ac1tfee50d3fa14e3e41@mail.gmail.com>
2008-07-14 14:10 ` Mike Snitzer
@ 2008-07-14 16:15 ` Andrew Morton
2008-07-15 2:06 ` Hidehiro Kawai
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2008-07-14 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Snitzer
Cc: Hidehiro Kawai, jack, linux-ext4, linux-kernel, Satoshi OSHIMA,
sugita
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch removed from -mm tree
[not found] ` <170fa0d20807140708k46f86ac1tfee50d3fa14e3e41@mail.gmail.com>
2008-07-14 14:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2008-07-14 16:15 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2008-07-15 2:06 ` Hidehiro Kawai
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hidehiro Kawai @ 2008-07-15 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Snitzer
Cc: Andrew Morton, jack, linux-ext4, linux-kernel, Satoshi OSHIMA,
sugita
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread