[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1494343983.2659.7.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 11:33:03 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, osd-dev@...n-osd.org,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
jack@...e.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, corbet@....net,
neilb@...e.de, clm@...com, tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [RFC xfstests PATCH] xfstests: add a writeback error handling
test
On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 08:00 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:45:51AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > With the patch series above, ext4 now passes. xfs and btrfs end up in
> > r/o mode after the test. xfs returns -EIO at that point though, and
> > btrfs returns -EROFS. What behavior we actually want there, I'm not
> > certain. We might be able to mitigate that by putting the journals on a
> > separate device?
>
> This looks like XFS shut down because of a permanent write error from
> dm-error. Which seems like the expected behavior.
Oops, didn't see this message earlier...
Yeah, that's entirely reasonable when there is a write error to the
journal. The latest version of this uses $SCRATCH_LOGDEV to put the
journal on a different device, and with that I get the expected behavior
from xfs.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists