From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/22] block: convert to errseq_t based writeback error tracking Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 04:59:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20170624115946.GA22561@infradead.org> References: <20170616193427.13955-1-jlayton@redhat.com> <20170616193427.13955-17-jlayton@redhat.com> <20170620123544.GC19781@infradead.org> <1497980684.4555.16.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Jan Kara , tytso@mit.edu, axboe@kernel.dk, mawilcox@microsoft.com, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , "Darrick J . Wong" , Carlos Maiolino , Eryu Guan , David Howells , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1497980684.4555.16.camel@redhat.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:44:44PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > In order to query for errors with errseq_t, you need a previously- > sampled point from which to check. When you call > filemap_write_and_wait_range though you don't have a struct file and so > no previously-sampled value. So can we simply introduce variants of them that take a struct file? That would be: a) less churn b) less code c) less chance to get data integrity wrong