2018-04-03 21:10:29 UTC
Back when I worked on making fsync() in journald asynchronous, I
preserved the existing strategy of ignoring fsync() errors.
In reading , I am reminded of this situation and am again wondering
why this is the case. Shouldn't journald trigger a journal rotate when
fsync() realizes an IO error, marking the previous journal as corrupt?
Can someone remind me of the rationale behind the existing approach?