On Fri, Dec 18 2020, Jeffrey Layton wrote:
>
> The patch we're discussing here _does_ add a f_op->syncfs, which is why
> I was suggesting to do it that way.

I haven't thought through the issues to decide what I think of adding a
new op, but I already know what I think of adding ->syncfs.  Don't Do
It.  The name is much too easily confused with ->sync_fs.

If you call it ->sync_fs_return_error() it would be MUCH better.

And having said that, the solution becomes obvious.  Add a new flag,
either as another bit in 'int wait', or as a new bool.
The new flag would be "return_error" - or whatever is appropriate.

NeilBrown