Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-28 Thread NeilBrown
On Mon, Feb 27 2017, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 10:32 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 27 2017, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> >> > >> > My thought is that PG_error is definitely useful for applications to get >> > correct errors back when doing write()/sync_file_range() so that

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-28 Thread Jeff Layton
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 12:12 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 02/28/2017 03:11 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > <> > > > > I'll probably have questions about the read side as well, but for now it > > looks like it's mostly used in an ad-hoc way to communicate errors > > across subsystems (block to fs layer,

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-28 Thread Boaz Harrosh
On 02/28/2017 03:11 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: <> > > I'll probably have questions about the read side as well, but for now it > looks like it's mostly used in an ad-hoc way to communicate errors > across subsystems (block to fs layer, for instance). If memory does not fail me it used to be checked l

Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-27 Thread Jeff Layton
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 10:32 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27 2017, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > > > My thought is that PG_error is definitely useful for applications to get > > correct errors back when doing write()/sync_file_range() so that they know > > there is an error in the data that

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-27 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 15:51 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Feb 27, 2017, at 8:07 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 11:27 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > On

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-27 Thread NeilBrown
On Mon, Feb 27 2017, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > My thought is that PG_error is definitely useful for applications to get > correct errors back when doing write()/sync_file_range() so that they know > there is an error in the data that _they_ wrote, rather than receiving an > error for data that may

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-27 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Feb 27, 2017, at 8:07 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 11:27 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > [added linux-scsi and lin

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-27 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 11:27 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > [added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error > > > > h

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-26 Thread NeilBrown
On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: >> >> > [added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error >> > handling as well] >> > On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 09:42 -0500, Jeff Layton w

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-26 Thread Jeff Layton
On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 15:30 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > [added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error > > > handling as well] > > > On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 09:42 -0

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-26 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > > [added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error > > handling as well] > > On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 09:42 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Proposing this as a LSF/MM TOPIC, but it

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-26 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > > [added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error > > handling as well] > > On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 09:42 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Proposing this as a LSF/MM TOPIC, but it

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-26 Thread NeilBrown
On Sun, Feb 26 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > [added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error > handling as well] > On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 09:42 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> Proposing this as a LSF/MM TOPIC, but it may turn out to be me just >> not understanding the semantics h

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] do we really need PG_error at all?

2017-02-26 Thread James Bottomley
[added linux-scsi and linux-block because this is part of our error handling as well] On Sun, 2017-02-26 at 09:42 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Proposing this as a LSF/MM TOPIC, but it may turn out to be me just > not understanding the semantics here. > > As I was looking into -ENOSPC handling in c