Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 15:31:41 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ext4: don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty()
Message-ID: <20200519193141.GG2396055@mit.edu>
References: <20200427013438.219117-1-harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
 <20200427013438.219117-2-harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200427013438.219117-2-harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 06:34:38PM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> Don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty, since the errors
> indicate valid failures below Ext4.  In all of the other instances of
> ext4_ext_dirty calls, the error return value is handled in some
> way. This patch makes those remaining couple of places to handle
> ext4_ext_dirty errors as well. In case of ext4_split_extent_at(), the
> ignorance of return value is intentional. The reason is that we are
> already in error path and there isn't much we can do if ext4_ext_dirty
> returns error. This patch adds a comment for that case explaining why
> we ignore the return value.
> 
> In the longer run, we probably should
> make sure that errors from other mark_dirty routines are handled as
> well.
> 
> Ran gce-xfstests smoke tests and verified that there were no
> regressions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted