On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Any reason a bad inode can't have its i_sb changed to a bad_inode_fs ?
That would be my personal preference too, this was just the quick hack
version.
Changing superblocks might have other consequences (like getting the
superblock inode lists right
Alan Cox writes:
> Any reason a bad inode can't have its i_sb changed to a bad_inode_fs ?
I believe this is what Linus suggested.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> {
> - if (inode->i_sb && inode->i_sb->s_op && inode->i_sb->s_op->write_inode)
> + if (inode->i_sb && inode->i_sb->s_op && inode->i_sb->s_op->write_inode &&
>!is_bad_inode(inode))
> inode->i_sb->s_op->write_inode(inode, sync);
> }
Any reason a bad inode can't have its
{
- if (inode-i_sb inode-i_sb-s_op inode-i_sb-s_op-write_inode)
+ if (inode-i_sb inode-i_sb-s_op inode-i_sb-s_op-write_inode
!is_bad_inode(inode))
inode-i_sb-s_op-write_inode(inode, sync);
}
Any reason a bad inode can't have its i_sb changed to a bad_inode_fs ?
Alan Cox writes:
Any reason a bad inode can't have its i_sb changed to a bad_inode_fs ?
I believe this is what Linus suggested.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Any reason a bad inode can't have its i_sb changed to a bad_inode_fs ?
That would be my personal preference too, this was just the quick hack
version.
Changing superblocks might have other consequences (like getting the
superblock inode lists right etc).
I previously wrote:
> I will post a patch separately which handles a couple of cases where
> *_delete_inode() does not call clear_inode() in all cases.
OK, here it is. The ext2_delete_inode() change isn't exactly a bug fix,
but rather a "performance" change. No need to hold BLK to check status
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> However, since make_bad_inode() only changes the file methods and not
> the superblock
Please just make "make_bad_inode()" just do
inode->i_sb = bad_super_block;
and do everything else too.
It's not acceptable to make low-level
Pavel writes:
> [I'd really like to get patch it; killing user's data without good
> reason seems evil to me, and this did quite a lot of damage to my
> $HOME.]
>
> Pavel
> PS: Only filesystem at use at time of problem was ext2, and
On Friday, April 27, 2001 12:28:54 AM +0200 Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Okay, so what about following patch, followed by attempt to debug it?
> [I'd really like to get patch it; killing user's data without good
> reason seems evil to me, and this did quite a lot of damage to my
>
Hi!
> >> > I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
> >> > happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
> >> > or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
> >> > could not read while disk was down with zeros -> massive disk
>
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
could not read while disk was down with zeros - massive disk
corruption.
On Friday, April 27, 2001 12:28:54 AM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Okay, so what about following patch, followed by attempt to debug it?
[I'd really like to get patch it; killing user's data without good
reason seems evil to me, and this did quite a lot of damage to my
Pavel writes:
[I'd really like to get patch it; killing user's data without good
reason seems evil to me, and this did quite a lot of damage to my
$HOME.]
Pavel
PS: Only filesystem at use at time of problem was ext2, and it was
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
However, since make_bad_inode() only changes the file methods and not
the superblock
Please just make make_bad_inode() just do
inode-i_sb = bad_super_block;
and do everything else too.
It's not acceptable to make low-level filesystems
I previously wrote:
I will post a patch separately which handles a couple of cases where
*_delete_inode() does not call clear_inode() in all cases.
OK, here it is. The ext2_delete_inode() change isn't exactly a bug fix,
but rather a performance change. No need to hold BLK to check status
or
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:01:20 PM +0200 Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
> >> > happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
> >> > or so. When
Hi!
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
> >> > happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
> >> > or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
> >> > could not read while disk was down with zeros
Hi!
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
could not read while disk was down with zeros - massive disk
On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:01:20 PM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily
On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:01:20 PM +0200 Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
>> > happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
>> > or so. When disk recovered, linux
Hi!
> > Hi!
> >
> > I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
> > happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
> > or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
> > could not read while disk was down with zeros -> massive disk
>
On Sunday, April 22, 2001 02:10:42 PM +0200 Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
> happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
> or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
could not read while disk was down with zeros -> massive disk
corruption.
Solution is not to
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
could not read while disk was down with zeros - massive disk
corruption.
Solution is not to
On Sunday, April 22, 2001 02:10:42 PM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
Hi!
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
could not read while disk was down with zeros - massive disk
corruption.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:01:20 PM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote
28 matches
Mail list logo
