From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0629DC433F5 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1356265AbiDLNtM (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:49:12 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40012 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1356228AbiDLNtG (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:49:06 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DDB354BDE; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Kd6NP250DzBrX8; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:42:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemm600015.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.52) by kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:46:46 +0800 Received: from [10.174.176.52] (10.174.176.52) by kwepemm600015.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:46:45 +0800 Message-ID: <4a8e21fb-d8bf-5428-67e5-41c47529e641@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 21:46:44 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] nfs: nfs{,4}_file_flush should consume writeback error To: Trond Myklebust , "anna@kernel.org" , "smayhew@redhat.com" CC: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "liuyongqiang13@huawei.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "yi.zhang@huawei.com" , "zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com" , References: <20220305124636.2002383-1-chenxiaosong2@huawei.com> <20220305124636.2002383-2-chenxiaosong2@huawei.com> <5666cb64-c9e4-0549-6ddb-cfc877c9c071@huawei.com> <037054f5ac2cd13e59db14b12f4ab430f1ddef5d.camel@hammerspace.com> From: "chenxiaosong (A)" In-Reply-To: <037054f5ac2cd13e59db14b12f4ab430f1ddef5d.camel@hammerspace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.176.52] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To kwepemm600015.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.52) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2022/3/6 23:08, Trond Myklebust 写道: > > Just to clarify a little. > > I don't see a need to consume the writeback errors on close(), unless > other filesystems do the same. If the intention is that fsync() should > see _all_ errors that haven't already been seen, then NFS should follow > the same semantics as all the other filesystems. > Other filesystem will _not_ clear writeback error on close(). And other filesystem will _not_ clear writeback error on async write() too. Other filesystem _only_ clear writeback error on fsync() or sync write(). Should NFS follow the same semantics as all the other filesystems?