On 8/5/19 2:27 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2019/08/06 6:26, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> In any case, looking again at this code, it looks like there is a >>> problem with dio->size being incremented early, even for fragments >>> that get BLK_QC_T_EAGAIN, because dio->size is being used in >>> blkdev_bio_end_io(). So an incorrect size can be reported to user >>> space in that case on completion (e.g. large asynchronous no-wait dio >>> that cannot be issued in one go). >>> >>> So maybe something like this ? (completely untested) >> >> I think that looks pretty good, I like not double accounting with >> this_size and dio->size, and we retain the old style ordering for the >> ret value. > > Do you want a proper patch with real testing backup ? I can send that > later today. Yeah that'd be great, I like your approach better. -- Jens Axboe
