Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:47:31 +0200 | From | Sancho Dauskardt <> | Subject | Re: FAT statfs loop abort on read-error |
| |
Hi,
It's a while back, but now here's a patch that "works for me". Once applied, we get a nice -EIO when doing a df / statfs() on a mounted FAT partition with removed media (without this would hang for minutes).
The change will affect anybody calling fat_access() (the cvf stuff, other fat-dependent modules).
Applies on 2.4.19 .. 2.4.22 for me.
Thanks, - sda
At 23:46 08.07.03 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >Sancho Dauskardt <sda@bdit.de> writes: > > > >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 ? > >I submited the some patch to marcelo several times about one year ago, >however, unfortunately those patches was ignored. > >So, one large patch may not be applied. And incremental ways is more >safety, I think. (Probably, we need to address the difference of vfs >and umsdos) > > > Or, as you write 'some parts', which parts would that be ? > >I thought that the patches of only bug fix is probably easy to be >applied.
[unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream] | ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |