From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSamJ-000190-2g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:01:55 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSamH-000172-Co
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:01:54 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KSamH-00016u-5y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:01:53 -0400
Received: from smtp.ctxuk.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:51305
	helo=SMTP.EU.CITRIX.COM)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@labri.fr>) id 1KSamG-0006w0-OM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:01:52 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:01:23 +0100
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] report read/write errors to IDE guest driver
	as ECC errorsj
Message-ID: <20080811170123.GU4499@implementation.uk.xensource.com>
References: <20080805115506.GR4478@implementation.uk.xensource.com>
	<48990BC6.1050503@codemonkey.ws> <20080806092822.GC9055@redhat.com>
	<18592.27928.201904.615457@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <18592.27928.201904.615457@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Ian Jackson, le Mon 11 Aug 2008 17:47:20 +0100, a écrit :
> > Special ENOSPC handling can be added on top.
> > I agree that pausing the guest is probably best option in that scenario,
> 
> I disagree.  Most reasonable guests will have special handling for
> write failures on their disks.  For example, Linux will (in the
> default setup) remount the fs readonly precisely to prevent
> corruption.

Actually no, see the thread
"ext3 seems to ignore ECC errors"
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121786230719154&w=2

> Pausing the guest denies the guest the ability to take whatever action
> it really wants to.

Sure, but I'm afraid of e.g. guests that would handle it by thinking
"bad sector, let's mark it as such and try another one".

Samuel