On 2/11/21 4:08 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > First 4 should be good and simple. 5/5 is my shot on the segfaults, > take it with a grain of salt. > > link-timeout failure is a separate beast, it's from the old times, > and comes from the kernel's io_async_find_and_cancel() failing with > ENOENT(?) when a linked-timeout sees its master but fails to cancel > it, e.g. when the master is in IRQ or posting CQE. > Maybe we just need to fix the test. 1-4 look fine to me, I don't like 5. I've committed a different variant that I think better fixes the real issue of doing a return that's too early. -- Jens Axboe
