On Thu, August 02, 2012 at 15:46 (+0200), Arne Jansen wrote: > On 02.08.2012 13:57, Liu Bo wrote: >> Anyway, for now, our error flag has only been stored in memory, so what >> about just keep it until we find a graceful way? > > Yeah, we need this patch to restore consistency. We can define a fixed > area on disk (e.g. behind the superblock) where we can write the flag > to without risking the superblock. At least we all agree that we need this patch, fine. We don't yet agree that we need a place to store a "please consider fsck" flag. Can I please get one concrete example in which situation we a) do detect the user should really do a file system check AND b) do not abort the transaction to clean the mess up? (An example on how we could fail transaction cleanup is also accepted). If such a situation doesn't exist, there's no need for this flag. The fact that ext has such a flag doesn't convince me, probably because I know nothing about ext. I can imagine that they can detect file system errors without the ability to return to a potentially older consistent state. Thanks, -Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
