On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:21:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:28:30PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:13:22PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I think a per-file or even per-blockdev/fs error state that'd be > > > returned by fsync() would be more than sufficient. > > > > Ah; this was my suggestion to Jeff on IRC. That we add a per-superblock > > wb_err and then allow syncfs() to return it. So you'd open an fd on > > a directory (for example), and call syncfs() which would return -EIO > > or -ENOSPC if either of those conditions had occurred since you opened > > the fd. > > When or how would the per-superblock wb_err flag get cleared? That's not how errseq works, Ted ;-) > Would all subsequent fsync() calls on that file system now return EIO? > Or would only all subsequent syncfs() calls return EIO? Only ones which occur after the last sampling get reported through this particular file descriptor.
