Pavel Machek wrote: > >Maybe the card is pretty close to going to crash, but... two disk >successive disk errors still should not be cause for journal >corruption. > >[Also errors could be corelated. Imagine severe overheat. You'll >successive failing writes, but if you let cool it down, you'll still >have working media... only with corrupt journal :-)] > Pavel > >
Hmm... So how is this handled in other systems? E.g. if you yank a USB device whilst there is a lot of outstanding data inside the device that hasn't been ack:d yet. The way I see it, filesystems should assume the following at a failed write: * 0-n sectors were written successfully. * 0-1 sectors have corrupt data. * 0-m sectors have old data. * The lower layer will report back 0-k successfully written sectors, where k <= n. So perhaps the best course of action is to remove the sector-by-sector failsafe? It will increase the chance of k < n, but it will not break above assumption. Rgds Pierre - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
