Message-ID: <487C0643.8080907@hitachi.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:06:59 +0900
From:	Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, jack@...e.cz,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Satoshi OSHIMA <satoshi.oshima.fk@...achi.com>,
	sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: - jbd-strictly-check-for-write-errors-on-data-buffers.patch
    removed from -mm tree

Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:51:35 +0900 Hidehiro Kawai <
>>hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello Andrew,
>>>
>>>akpm@...ux-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@...achi.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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists