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:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:12:14 +0200
From:   Boaz Harrosh <>
To:     Jeff Layton <>, NeilBrown <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>
        linux-scsi <>,
        lsf-pc <>,
        Neil Brown <>,
        LKML <>,
        James Bottomley <>,
        linux-mm <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>
Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

On 02/28/2017 03:11 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> I'll probably have questions about the read side as well, but for now it
> looks like it's mostly used in an ad-hoc way to communicate errors
> across subsystems (block to fs layer, for instance).

If memory does not fail me it used to be checked long time ago in the
read-ahead case. On the buffered read case, the first page is read synchronous
and any error is returned to the caller, but then a read-ahead chunk is
read async all the while the original thread returned to the application.
So any errors are only recorded on the page-bit, since otherwise the uptodate
is off and the IO will be retransmitted. Then the move to read_iter changed
all that I think.
But again this is like 5-6 years ago, and maybe I didn't even understand
very well.

> --
> Jeff Layton <>

I would like a Documentation of all this as well please. Where are the
tests for this?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists