From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377A57F56 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:23:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B3D304039 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id wFgZyw6wCZuNkZrn (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:23:56 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] xfs: rework xfs_buf_bio_endio error handling Message-ID: <20140829002356.GC17502@infradead.org> References: <1408084747-4540-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1408084747-4540-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1408084747-4540-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:39:01PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > In doing so, allow xfs_buf_iorequest to return an error. That way, > the caller can check for submission errors safely if required, and > easily distinguish them from completion errors that come from > xfs_buf_iowait(). While this looks correct to me it also looks confusing. Why can't we simply propagat the submission errors through error returns and use ->b_error for completion errors instead? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs