[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c60d0e19af9a820aae15cd3477da561115c9852.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 07:44:10 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, amir73il@...il.com,
sargun@...gun.me, miklos@...redi.hu, jack@...e.cz, neilb@...e.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vfs: Add a super block operation to check for
writeback errors
On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 11:25 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:19:00PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:54PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > - ret2 = errseq_check_and_advance(&sb->s_wb_err, &f.file->f_sb_err);
> > > + if (sb->s_op->errseq_check_advance)
> > > + ret2 = sb->s_op->errseq_check_advance(sb, f.file);
> >
> > What a terrible name for an fs operation. You don't seem to be able
> > to distinguish between semantics and implementation. How about
> > check_error()?
>
> check_error() sounds better. I was not very happy with the name either.
> Thought of starting with something.
>
Maybe report_error() ?
The same error won't be reported on the next call on the same fd. I
think the important point to make here is that this error must be
reported to syncfs() or something like it once you call this.
(In hindsight, I sort of wish I had done s/serrseq_set/errseq_record/
and s/errseq_check_and_advance/errseq_report/ when I initially did this,
if only to make the API a little less dependent on the implementation.)
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists