Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:57:50 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com,
        vgoyal@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: all callers should check blkdev_issue_flush's
 return
Message-ID: <20120626155750.GA3494@redhat.com>
References: <1340724445-3314-1-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com>
 <20120626155115.GA17242@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120626155115.GA17242@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1196
Lines: 26

On Tue, Jun 26 2012 at 11:51am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/