Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Add IO_U_F_DEVICE_ERROR to identify error types

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 9/26/24 12:08 PM, Vincent Fu wrote:
> On 9/26/24 13:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/25/24 6:41 PM, Minwoo Im wrote:
>>> diff --git a/io_u.h b/io_u.h
>>> index ab93d50f967e..20afad667ee1 100644
>>> --- a/io_u.h
>>> +++ b/io_u.h
>>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ enum {
>>>       IO_U_F_BARRIER        = 1 << 6,
>>>       IO_U_F_VER_LIST        = 1 << 7,
>>>       IO_U_F_PATTERN_DONE    = 1 << 8,
>>> +    IO_U_F_DEVICE_ERROR    = 1 << 9,
>>>   };
>>>     /*
>>
>> The patches you sent should've been a series, how are they supposed to
>> both apply when you add an item here for each of them as if the other
>> one doesn't exist?
>>
>> I'll fix it up, but for the future, if patches depend on each other, it
>> should be a series. Please check if everything works when it's pushed
>> out, which should be shortly.
>>
>> And since I'm on a plane and this doesn't appear to want to send, when
>> you do see it, please also add HOWTO additions similar to the fio.1
>> additions you made.
>>
> 
> Also, Minwoo, we are seeing some build failures with your patches with
> compilers rejecting abs(io_u->error) since error is unsigned. Please
> fix that up as well.

Doh yes, I fixed that up now.

> I do have a bot that automatically runs mailing list patches through
> our CI, but it does not report the results to the list and I am not
> always quick enough to manually report CI failures:
> 
> https://github.com/fiotestbot/fio/actions

Send them to the list! It's not like it's a high traffic list, and
that's super useful. Mostly because it gets the same coverage as a
github pr then, but also because it'll inform the submitter that there's
an issue without either you or me letting them now. Hence it saves time
and cycles, which is a big win in my book.

-- 
Jens Axboe