On Fri, Dec 18 2020, Jeffrey Layton wrote: > > The patch we're discussing here _does_ add a f_op->syncfs, which is why > I was suggesting to do it that way. I haven't thought through the issues to decide what I think of adding a new op, but I already know what I think of adding ->syncfs. Don't Do It. The name is much too easily confused with ->sync_fs. If you call it ->sync_fs_return_error() it would be MUCH better. And having said that, the solution becomes obvious. Add a new flag, either as another bit in 'int wait', or as a new bool. The new flag would be "return_error" - or whatever is appropriate. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
