On Di, 03.04.18 14:10, vcap...@pengaru.com (vcap...@pengaru.com) wrote:
> Back when I worked on making fsync() in journald asynchronous, I
> preserved the existing strategy of ignoring fsync() errors.
>
> In reading [1], I am reminded of this situation and am again wondering
> why this is the case. Shouldn't journald trigger a journal rotate when
> fsync() realizes an IO error, marking the previous journal as corrupt?
>
> Can someone remind me of the rationale behind the existing approach?
Hmm, you are right, we should rotate if fsync() fails, indeed.
Would love to review/merge a patch for that.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
