On 2/2/24 3:20 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2/2/24 1:23 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote: >> On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 13:14 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> >>> Ah gotcha, yeah that?s odd and could not ever have worked. I wonder >>> how that was tested? >>> >>> I?ll setup a liburing branch as well. >>> >> It is easy. You omit to check the function return value by telling to >> yourself that it cannot fail... >> >> I caught my mistake on a second pass code review... > > Oh I can see how that can happen, but then there should be no functional > changes in terms of latency... Which means that it was never tested. The > test results were from the original postings, so probably just fine. > It's just that later versions would've failed. Looking at the example > test case, it doesn't check the return value. Setup a 'napi' branch with the patches, and some fixes on top. It's a start... I'll try the example ping test here, just need to get off a plane and be able to access test boxes. -- Jens Axboe
