On Wed 04-09-24 10:46:57, Amir Goldstein wrote: > This is the logic behavior and one that we would like to verify > using a generic fstest similar to xfs/546. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20240830152648.GE6216@frogsfrogsfrogs/ > Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> Yeah, makes sense to me. Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> Honza > --- > > Ted, > > Please see the discussion about moving test xfs/546 to generic. > > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Amir. > > fs/ext4/super.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > index e72145c4ae5a..b9cf18819e11 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > @@ -6279,7 +6279,7 @@ static int ext4_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait) > struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); > > if (unlikely(ext4_forced_shutdown(sb))) > - return 0; > + return -EIO; > > trace_ext4_sync_fs(sb, wait); > flush_workqueue(sbi->rsv_conversion_wq); > -- > 2.34.1 > -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
