[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806232236.30961.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:36:30 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sct@...hat.com, adilger@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
Satoshi OSHIMA <satoshi.oshima.fk@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ext3: don't read inode block if the buffer has a write error
On Monday 23 June 2008 22:31, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 23-06-08 21:46:27, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I don't know why it was done like this, or if anybody actually tested
> > any of it, but AFAIKS the best way to fix this is to simply not
> > clear any uptodate bits upon write errors.
>
> That would be non-trivial effort because there are lots of places which
> do things like:
> wait_on_buffer(bh);
> if (!buffer_uptodate)
> /* IO error handling */
>
> But what you say sounds like a reasonable thing from a logical
> perspective.
For reads, that's obviously a common pattern, although even that's
broken in some cases where it is used. But definitely uptodate should
not be set on a read error (although does it need to be explicitly
cleared? I would hope we don't submit a read anyway if the page/buffer
is already uptodate).
But you're right, even changing this for writes would not be a trivial
effort.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists