Hi, Please ignore this email. It has been sent by mistake. Wont happen again. Sincerest apologies for the spam. Thanks and Regards, Avadhut Naik On 9/19/2022 4:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 9/19/22 2:17 PM, Avadhut Naik wrote: >> From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> We have a couple of problems, first reports of unexpected link breakage >> for reads when cqe->res indicates that the IO was done in full. The >> reason here is partial IO with retries. >> >> TL;DR; we compare the result in __io_complete_rw_common() against >> req->cqe.res, but req->cqe.res doesn't store the full length but rather >> the length left to be done. So, when we pass the full corrected result >> via kiocb_done() -> __io_complete_rw_common(), it fails. >> >> The second problem is that we don't try to correct res in >> io_complete_rw(), which, for instance, might be a problem for O_DIRECT >> but when a prefix of data was cached in the page cache. We also >> definitely don't want to pass a corrected result into io_rw_done(). >> >> The fix here is to leave __io_complete_rw_common() alone, always pass >> not corrected result into it and fix it up as the last step just before >> actually finishing the I/O. > > I'm confused by this email, why is it being sent? And what are the 2-3/3 > patches? > > And while this one should certainly go to stable, also note that: > > commit 62bb0647b14646fa6c9aa25ecdf67ad18f13523c > Author: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Sep 13 13:21:23 2022 +0100 > > io_uring/rw: fix error'ed retry return values > > exists in Linus's tree and should go in alongside the parent as it > fixes the parameter type. >
