On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/17/2015 08:53 AM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 17, 2015 5:36 PM, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:axboe@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> > >> > On 07/17/2015 08:30 AM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: >> >> >> >> Probably worth adding to do_verify() as well. >> > >> > >> > Might be better to ensure that they are reaped when we break out of >> the loop instead? >> > >> >> That's exactly what happens with the patch, doesn't it? > > > It might be... It's not very clear why a !td->cur_depth should force us to > stay in the loop? Because to me breaking out of the loop on time- or size-based limit exceeded condition with a non-zero td->cur_depth means loosing completions. Regards, Andrey > > So lets back this up a bit. What problems were observed? Test case? > > -- > Jens Axboe > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
