On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Heh, this "pushing of responsibility" looks like a silly game. If an error
> can happen in a function, it is better to report it as far as easily
> possible (unless we can cleanly handle it which we cannot here). I'm guilty
> of making dquot_free_inode() ignore errors from mark_all_dquot_dirty() and
> in retrospect it would have been better if these were propagated to the
> caller as well. And eventually we can fix this if we decide we care enough.
> I'm completely fine with just returning an error from dquot_free_inode()
> and ignore it in all the callers except for ext4. Then filesystems which
> care enough can try to handle the error. That way we at least don't
> increase the design debt from the past.
I sent an update but since patch title changed it landed in a new
email thread I think ("[PATCH v2 28/31] quota: add get_inode_usage
callback to transfer multi-inode charges"). I will respond to your
comment in that thread.
