On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 10:26:05AM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:37:43PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:58:04AM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > > This disables repair process on ro cases as it can cause system > > > to be unresponsive on the ASSERT() in repair_io_failure(). > > > > > > This can happen when scrub is running and a hardware error pops up, > > > we should fallback to ro mounts gracefully instead of being unresponsive. > > > > So this will also report the error as uncorrectable. This might be a bit > > misleading, if a device error happens first and then some potentially > > corectable errors are detected. This could be accounted as 'unverified' > > error, that has closet maning. > > Make sense, we can do > if (ret < 0 && ret == -EROFS) > spin_lock(); > unverified++; > spin_unlock() > > However, in scrub_fixup_nodatasum() all errors including ENOMEM of path > allocation and failure of trans are interpreted to 'uncorrectable', So I > wander it means this 'uncorrectable' is only valid in this scrub process?
I'm not sure we have a proper definition of the various stats. My user expectation is that 'uncorrectable' refers to permament errors, so we should try to match the type of error everywhere. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
