On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 11:25 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:19:00PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:54PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > - ret2 = errseq_check_and_advance(&sb->s_wb_err, &f.file->f_sb_err); > > > + if (sb->s_op->errseq_check_advance) > > > + ret2 = sb->s_op->errseq_check_advance(sb, f.file); > > > > What a terrible name for an fs operation. You don't seem to be able > > to distinguish between semantics and implementation. How about > > check_error()? > > check_error() sounds better. I was not very happy with the name either. > Thought of starting with something. > Maybe report_error() ? The same error won't be reported on the next call on the same fd. I think the important point to make here is that this error must be reported to syncfs() or something like it once you call this. (In hindsight, I sort of wish I had done s/serrseq_set/errseq_record/ and s/errseq_check_and_advance/errseq_report/ when I initially did this, if only to make the API a little less dependent on the implementation.) -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
