On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 05:11:30PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > The block layer had been setting the state to in-flight prior to updating > the timer. This is the wrong order since the timeout handler could observe > the in-flight state with the older timeout, believing the request had > expired when in fact it is just getting started. > > Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx> The way I understood Barts comments to my comments on his patch we actually need the two updates to be atomic. I haven't had much time to follow up, but I'd like to hear Barts opinion. Either way we clearly need to document our assumptions here in comments.
