[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1351389458-5279-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:57:38 -0400
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
Akira Fujita <a-fujita@...jp.nec.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: introduce ext4_error_remove_page
Hi Ted,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:16:26PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:24:23PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > Well, we could set a new attribute bit on the file which indicates
> > > that the file has been corrupted, and this could cause any attempts to
> > > open the file to return some error until the bit has been cleared.
> >
> > That sounds a lot better than renaming/moving the file.
>
> What I would recommend is adding a
>
> #define FS_CORRUPTED_FL 0x01000000 /* File is corrupted */
>
> ... and which could be accessed and cleared via the lsattr and chattr
> programs.
Thank you for the info. This could help my next work.
> > > Application programs could also get very confused when any attempt to
> > > open or read from a file suddenly returned some new error code (EIO,
> > > or should we designate a new errno code for this purpose, so there is
> > > a better indication of what the heck was going on?)
> >
> > EIO sounds wrong ... but it is perhaps the best of the existing codes. Adding
> > a new one is also challenging too.
>
> I think we really need a different error code from EIO; it's already
> horribly overloaded already, and if this is new behavior when the
> customers get confused and call up the distribution help desk, they
> won't thank us if we further overload EIO. This is abusing one of the
> System V stream errno's, but no one else is using it:
>
> #define EADV 68 /* Advertise error */
>
> I note that we've already added a new error code:
>
> #define EHWPOISON 133 /* Memory page has hardware error */
>
> ... although the glibc shipping with Debian testing hasn't been taught
> what it is, so strerror(EHWPOISON) returns "Unknown error 133". We
> could simply allow open(2) and stat(2) return this error, although I
> wonder if we're just better off defining a new error code.
Whether we use EIO or EHWPOISON seems to be controversial. Andi likes
to use EIO because we can handle memory errors and legacy I/O errors in
the similar and integrated manner.
But personally, it's OK for me to use EHWPOISON. Obviously defining this
error code in glibc is a necessary step if we go in this direction.
Thanks,
Naoya
--
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