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@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> Thanks, applied. - Ted
