Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp2423284pxu; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:56:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKmjp62qLNOmhXEOf+QfW0K4CkjdmRs6w4XnA6XC20XeKnJrzIy5UVV+qo76DWaagzxNPJ X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3b8b:: with SMTP id u11mr5712237ejf.489.1608324959881; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:55:59 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1608324959; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=FQ75iSnF2LjFSfK8QU2hOH3kV22TT75YC+Jo0iIws4xEyrkamyZDIb2pJjeJFtTNkq y0DPJJZUy3v0bfN1i57Vet0897nepW+mjJKY7X8wk1LuzGW/gE423tVdbFzYinGGqUkA d6eXz/VkhoKVLxXMAu+L85IogbrWC+C92iOI/WusY6cHc0msx910TaZZLDCIAoGQnhrB JP/xXEkqKw+IaW2F0A7GNjkTHRbVFDQvOg2v42C1Dnj1a+eT4csqC/ui3RbwT0F6HOGv w3mYJuhQGIWp7ZvMtrgsIL7/pFC5y48hS/+YPpNWi2J1MVKCktqSkr64O20uPoG4hKRj mlkQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:message-id:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:date:to:from; bh=SvG1XampEncq+f3cBo9a3KtlcrWldeTm/Wx6VR6f1hE=; b=I9Mzy9oea5l2UVsVQOh10RwjmV6In4tOYT6I5OyQXU/3hD8GPlWHL6SmcHvVGTlVW+ qN0O3UongU9maviJHzwfg8DKtq1v1eQxpS4F3AhN7ECOtINa3a/AJ6XE1ac7TfndxBuY sfYHqam6qgDzZaG+YjIMLXYBxEkQzE2vqg7KK7gkbcl2MOmlywO+THnYDz0LEWsAiqHn itSdcjMZJB1QZ45VJTUgHcjTj1d1VpwA6KpGH/LfhRtyPikrD9zQiDiyK5ijb0FNNU8l nEXmg2e+ZOMUKYreRH1oF8QHlTrahpxDGgXsuT9r6DYcOyrAtWmw4vR6/letQlmIJM9P odOw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id kq16si3762499ejb.253.2020.12.18.12.55.37; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:55:59 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730930AbgLRU0D (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56878 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730516AbgLRU0C (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:26:02 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CB0AF5D; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:25:20 +0000 (UTC) From: NeilBrown To: Jeffrey Layton , Vivek Goyal Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 07:25:12 +1100 Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, sargun@sargun.me, miklos@szeredi.hu, willy@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz, neilb@suse.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] overlayfs: Check writeback errors w.r.t upper in ->syncfs() In-Reply-To: <20201218165551.GA1178523@tleilax.poochiereds.net> References: <20201216233149.39025-1-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20201216233149.39025-4-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20201217200856.GA707519@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <20201218144418.GA3424@redhat.com> <20201218150258.GA866424@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <20201218162819.GC3424@redhat.com> <20201218165551.GA1178523@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Message-ID: <87sg82n9p3.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, Dec 18 2020, Jeffrey Layton wrote: > > The patch we're discussing here _does_ add a f_op->syncfs, which is why > I was suggesting to do it that way. I haven't thought through the issues to decide what I think of adding a new op, but I already know what I think of adding ->syncfs. Don't Do It. The name is much too easily confused with ->sync_fs. If you call it ->sync_fs_return_error() it would be MUCH better. And having said that, the solution becomes obvious. Add a new flag, either as another bit in 'int wait', or as a new bool. The new flag would be "return_error" - or whatever is appropriate. NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJBBAEBCAAsFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAl/dECgOHG5laWxiQHN1 c2UuZGUACgkQOeye3VZigbk3ig/4iZJnVRvb8/0pwu2NgBVBzqiie5K8kJNvUzsU BBTsOxBahvwn2B3zMsI9IP3q77wAdVF8wbl8HihIjuGuFramVoMmkCH+t1vVHa35 cHuB+xZEOEqGgSVWYC02Ci54z+ZxHi71JlbVfT3n7Zrj1VY+k9q/23ZzRPknQjTr NU1QA2ya8r1P006F5/hJ/3zLTneuMYJsRWT6AlvYabI+rv12TMcirBBQFhcfb3je Q+/3RPZW1avW+hlIoACeMA0PRxWASwLH04Wx1zrC85G3OSpC+uBFt254jL/R5EPF GBiGPmEaEALoJrlnSoJLBWysb50lyTUf94R/Gj2wqYA3fJ51YB1eZqm2yudaUPWY QfYoaO6KdyjbPOJjXXD2lznIyWKvKFtT1XR/yvuKwuNtnuX2001uhXFLCLGTDFO8 ujbSBJkFlMGGvxfZ2FsqRUBNWgPaKHMUCgIeqiTVmSqPoVeaVn74Ru06ilIVbcTF 1ULHPC7arfCNRTbl7siAaGPSiPGbco4asdgrJzGyFaOJhgmZZ16kC1jFqAwwYMrg 1sfjpjkgyPWjYy+hAbkOMsp3O1s3jvzVc8Qu0YLd0HKEI2zL7b52MzkE2KH4i1WN hYD5QCUc1G1xzEMPwnMCC7Jdthypgzjg6J9TzbmtOlfWQFORuCOTEeHUzcx6Lsf0 e/2rvw== =hNhL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--