Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:29:49 +0200 | From | Sancho Dauskardt <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |