lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:01:36 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	Jan Kara <>,,,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	LKML <>,
	Edward Shishkin <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Stop clearing uptodate flag on write IO error

On Sat 14-01-12 18:19:02, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Jan Kara <> wrote:
> >
> >  for mostly historical reasons we still clear buffer_uptodate flag on write
> > IO errors. This is not only semantically wrong (buffer still has correct data
> > in it)
> That statement is so nonsensical that I can't get past it.
> When you understand why it is nonsensical, you understand why the bit
> is cleared.
  Hum, let me understand this. I understand the meaning of buffer_uptodate
bit as "the buffer has at least as new content as what is on disk". Now
when storage cannot write the block under the buffer, the contents of the
buffer is still "at least as new as what is (was) on disk". Therefore I
made above statement about clearing buffer_uptodate bit being wrong. But
apparently you have a different definition of buffer_uptodate or I was not
clear enough in explaining what I mean... Which is the case?

Jan Kara <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists