From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: all callers should check blkdev_issue_flush's return Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:33:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1340724445-3314-1-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com To: Mike Snitzer Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1340724445-3314-1-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com> (Mike Snitzer's message of "Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:27:25 -0400") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Mike Snitzer writes: > It is concerning that a FLUSH may fail but the blkdev_issue_flush > callers assume it will always succeed. > > Each blkdev_issue_flush caller should come to terms with the reality > that a FLUSH may fail -- the file_operations' .fsync methods in > particular. nilfs2 is the only filesystem that checks > blkdev_issue_flush's return. Yeah, as it stands, it looks like in many cases fsync won't return an error if a flush fails. That's bad.