RE: [PATCH/RFC] Lustre VFS patch

[braam]

Jens,

I think do answer your question:  
...
> > If we were to return errors, (which, I agree, _seems_ much 
> more sane, 
> > and we _did_ try that for a while!) then there is a good chance, 
> > namely immediately when something is flushed to disk, that 
> the system 
> > will detect the errors and not continue to execute 
> transactions making 
> > consistent testing of our replay mechanisms impossible.

So: we can use the flags, but we cannot return the errors.

> And if this it to make sense for inclusion, io _must_ be 
> ended with -EROFS or similar.
> 
> It seems to me that this probably belongs in your test 
> harness for debugging purposes. At least in its current state 
> it's not acceptable for inclusion.

This is, as I mentioned, only for testing.  It is, clearly, NOT ordinary
system behavior at all since we don't, and won't, return the error. 

Some people find it very convenient to have this available, but if the
opinion is that it is better to let development teams manage their own
testing infrastructure that is acceptable to me.

- Peter -



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/