[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170624115946.GA22561@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 04:59:46 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, corbet@....net,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/22] block: convert to errseq_t based writeback
error tracking
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:44:44PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> In order to query for errors with errseq_t, you need a previously-
> sampled point from which to check. When you call
> filemap_write_and_wait_range though you don't have a struct file and so
> no previously-sampled value.
So can we simply introduce variants of them that take a struct file?
That would be:
a) less churn
b) less code
c) less chance to get data integrity wrong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists