Commit message should say why we need a third event, rather than
reusing either of the other two (my guess: because you don't have a
location, and don't want to modify the existing two to report a
location - but why not just use 'sector-num':0,
'sectors-count':<size of file> to report the entire file as the
location?)
I would also be fine with that solution.
I would also be fine if we added an optional enum member to the
existing event that said which operation failed ('read', 'write',
'flush') - adding optional output members is safe, while converting
existing mandatory output members to optional may confuse existing
clients.