On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 12:21 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:55:38PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > @@ -668,12 +668,14 @@ static int gfs2_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > if (gfs2_is_jdata(ip)) > > - filemap_write_and_wait(mapping); > > + ret = file_write_and_wait(file); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > gfs2_ail_flush(ip->i_gl, 1); > > } > > Do we want to skip flushing the AIL if there was an error (possibly > previously encountered)? I'd think we'd want to flush the AIL then report > the error, like this: > I wondered about that. Note that earlier in the function, we also bail out without flushing the AIL if sync_inode_metadata fails, so I assumed that we'd want to do the same here. I could definitely be wrong and am fine with changing it if so. Discarding the error like we do today seems wrong though. Bob, thoughts? > if (gfs2_is_jdata(ip)) > - filemap_write_and_wait(mapping); > + ret = file_write_and_wait(file); > gfs2_ail_flush(ip->i_gl, 1); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > } -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
