Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] exfat: remove EXFAT_SB_DIRTY flag
To:     Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
Cc:     kohada.tetsuhiro@dc.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        mori.takahiro@ab.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        motai.hirotaka@aj.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        'Namjae Jeon' <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <CGME20200616021816epcas1p2bb235df44c0b6f74cdec2f12072891e3@epcas1p2.samsung.com>
 <20200616021808.5222-1-kohada.t2@gmail.com>
 <414101d64477$ccb661f0$662325d0$@samsung.com>
 <aac9d6c7-1d62-a85d-9bcb-d3c0ddc8fcd6@gmail.com>
 <500801d64572$0bdd2940$23977bc0$@samsung.com>
From:   Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a93d1a1-dc34-f799-240e-843d7f021bbf@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:22:21 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <500801d64572$0bdd2940$23977bc0$@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>> I mentioned rmdir as an example.
>> However, this problem is not only with rmdirs.
>> VOL_DIRTY remains when some functions abort with an error.
>> In original, VOL_DIRTY is not cleared even if performe 'sync'.
>> With this patch, it ensures that VOL_DIRTY will be cleared by 'sync'.
>>
>> Is my description insufficient?
> 
> I understood what you said. However, it is a natural result
> when deleting the related code with EXFAT_SB_DIRTY flag.
> 
> So I thought it would be better to separate it into new problems
> related to VOL_DIRTY-set under not real errors.

I see.
It seems that it is better to consider separately when consistency is corrupted and when it is kept.

>> BTW
>> Even with this patch applied,  VOL_DIRTY remains until synced in the above
>> case.
>> It's not  easy to reproduce as rmdir, but I'll try to fix it in the future.
> 
> I think it's not a problem not to clear VOL_DIRTY under real errors,
> because VOL_DIRTY is just like a hint to note that write was not finished clearly.
> 
> If you mean there are more situation like ENOTEMPTY you mentioned,
> please make new patch to fix them.

Hmm.
VOL_DIRTY is easily cleared by another write operation.
For that purpose, I think MediaFailure is more appropriate.

BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>