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;
Date:   Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:50:44 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Cc:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org,
        jlayton@kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, miklos@szeredi.hu,
        jack@suse.cz, neilb@suse.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] overlayfs: Report writeback errors on upper
Message-ID: <20201223185044.GQ874@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20201221195055.35295-1-vgoyal@redhat.com>
 <20201221195055.35295-4-vgoyal@redhat.com>
 <20201223182026.GA9935@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201223182026.GA9935@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:20:27PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> I fail to see why this is neccessary if you incorporate error reporting into the 
> sync_fs callback. Why is this separate from that callback? If you pickup Jeff's
> patch that adds the 2nd flag to errseq for "observed", you should be able to
> stash the first errseq seen in the ovl_fs struct, and do the check-and-return
> in there instead instead of adding this new infrastructure.

You still haven't explained why you want to add the "observed" flag.