[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A0F77BF1A64FB25344FC4021@Ximines.local>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:56:03 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
Subject: Re: BUG: Failure to send REQ_FLUSH on unmount on ext3, ext4, and FS
in general
--On 23 May 2011 13:33:50 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> It really should be changed. The previous (bad) excuse was that the
> ordering barrier code was too much overhead. Making a filesystem
> non-safe by default is already a bad sin, but having the code to make
> it safe around and not enabling it is plain criminal.
At risk of wandering into ext3 default flamewar, I suppose people foolishly
or not might want to live dangerously. If I'm creating an image on a
loopback mount, or copying stuff to a removable harddrive, perhaps I don't
really care if data gets corrupted if the power drops while I am writing,
as I can recreate the data. I'm always going to have that issue even with
FAT32 and other dinosaurs (ext2). I *do*, however, care if unmount()
doesn't write all the data, especially as "sync; sync; sync" doesn't
appear to write the data either.
--
Alex Bligh
--
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