Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:46:12 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
Cc:     Haotian Li <lihaotian9@huawei.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        "harshad shirwadkar," <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>,
        linfeilong <linfeilong@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsprogs: Try again to solve unreliable io case
Message-ID: <YILrxJoOA1reNhMq@mit.edu>
References: <d4fd737d-4280-1aee-32ae-36b303e6644d@huawei.com>
 <YH7/D1h5r9WB1TNq@mit.edu>
 <c1eb6441-9081-530c-63d8-1987048b2011@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c1eb6441-9081-530c-63d8-1987048b2011@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:18:09AM +0800, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> Thanks for your reply.
> Actually, we have met the problem in ipsan situation.
> When exec 'fsck -a <remote-device>', short-term fluctuations or
> abnormalities may occur on the network. Despite the driver has
> do the best effort, some IO errors may occur. So add retrying in
> e2fsprogs can further improve the reliability of the repair
> process.

But why doesn't this happen when the file system is mounted, and why
is that acceptable?   And why not change the driver to do more retries?

   		      	      	  - Ted