On 05/02/2015 08:45 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > > > On 04/29/2015 02:59 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote: >> On 04/28/2015 05:32 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: >>> On popular demand, here is an RFC. If you think there is a better >>> way to communicate with the kernel module for the check, please >>> let me know. >>> >>> >>> Intro >>> ----- >>> OCFS2 is often used in high-availaibility systems. However, ocfs2 >>> converts the filesystem to read-only at the drop of the hat. This >>> may not be necessary, since turning the filesystem read-only would >>> affect other running processes as well, decreasing availability. >>> >>> This attempt is to add errors=continue, which would return the EIO >>> to the calling process and terminate furhter processing so that >>> the filesystem is not corrupted further. However, the filesystem >>> is not converted to read-only. >> Is this safe, if detected an error when accessing an inode, how do you >> know this is only inode internal error? > > > Thanks for your comments. The error message would need to be modified to > specify the inode(s) which need to be checked. It could be a regular > file or the system inode. > >> If there is corruptions in other >> place, the fs will be corrupted further. >> > It there is a corruption in another place, the process will err at that > location. > > Could you provide a sample case to explain this situation? and how is it > different from what is already present in the code?
For example, if a disk had some bit reversion error, some used bits in local alloc are marked free and also an inode X's inline flag is cleared, set fs read-only when detected the inode error at the first time will stop more data corruption. I think if want to continue for some inconsistent, we need to prove it's safe, if can't then better stop at first time. Thanks, Junxiao. > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
