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
