[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120425203434.GB6938@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:34:34 -0700
From: djwong <djwong@...ibm.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>,
Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] jbd2: reduce the number of writes when commiting a
transacation
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 03:41:08PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:19:48PM +0000, djwong wrote:
> >
> > My huge checksum patchset _does_ include checksums for data blocks; see the
> > t_checksum field in struct journal_block_tag_s. iirc the corresponding journal
> > replay modifications will skip over corrupt data blocks and keep going.
>
> I need to check for this in the patches (and you may be doing this
> already), but in the kernel failed checksums should result in an
> ext4_error() call which will set the file system as corrupt and
> needing to be checked. And in e2fsck it should force a full check of
> the file system.
I'm fairly sure the kernel patch doesn't do that, I think it just skips the
block and moves on.
As for e2fsck... what does one do inside e2fsck to force a full check? Is that
just the equivalent of passing -f?
--D
>
> - Ted
> --
> 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
>
--
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