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

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

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