[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120626155750.GA3494@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:57:50 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
vgoyal@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: all callers should check blkdev_issue_flush's
return
On Tue, Jun 26 2012 at 11:51am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:27:25AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > It is concerning that a FLUSH may fail but the blkdev_issue_flush
> > callers assume it will always succeed.
> >
> > Each blkdev_issue_flush caller should come to terms with the reality
> > that a FLUSH may fail -- the file_operations' .fsync methods in
> > particular. nilfs2 is the only filesystem that checks
> > blkdev_issue_flush's return.
>
> Good spot, but it would be way better if you actually provided patches
> to fix this instead of just adding more compiler warnings.
Alasdair pointed this issue out in response to me asserting that
blkdev_issue_flush does return non-void. But anyway, others knowing
about this issue is half the battle. ;)
Most .fsync methods are straight-forward to convert but I'd prefer each
filesystem maintainer actively audit all blkdev_issue_flush calls.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists