lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: FAT statfs loop abort on read-error
At 00:54 08.07.03 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:57:19 +0200 Sancho Dauskardt <sda@bdit.de> wrote:
> > | when calling statfs on a volume that has been removed (without umount)
> > | fat_statfs() will attempt to read all sectors of the fat table quite
> a few
> > | times (depending on the fat type, eg. FAT16 --> 256 times).
>
>Yes, fat driver of 2.4 ignore the many errors.
>
> > | Possible solution:
> > | 1. let default_fat_access return something like -2 on 'can't read' error.
> > | 2. Abort stafs loop on error.
> > | 3. return -EIO
> > |
> > | This would break mode fat_access calls. I could make a patch, but I
> don't
> > | know what's going on with those cvf extensions (which seem to replace
> > | fat_access). Is dmsdos dead / can we ignore it ?
> > | Somewhere in the list archives, I found comments about the cvf stuff
> being
> > | completely removed ?
>
>I don't know anybody ported dmsdos to 2.4. The cvf stuff was removed
>and many error handlings was fixed on 2.5.x. So, personally I think to
>remove the cvf stuff and backport the some parts of fat driver to 2.4
>is good.

OK, the 100k diff between 2.4.21/fs/fat and 2.5.74 didn't really help me
understand what's really changed (other than the cvf removal).
Should I attempt to brute-force backport fs/fat/* in one large patch, or
incrementally re-apply the 2.5 changes to 2.4 ?
Or, as you write 'some parts', which parts would that be ?

- sda

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans