On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:19:10PM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> please take look at comment below.
> On 2018-02-15 04:27, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > [This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they
> > appear to be. Learn about spoofing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing]
> > preq->io_count is incrimented before calling aio_kernel_submit()
> > and it is decrimented in kaio_rw_aio_complete().
> > But if aio_kernel_submit() failed , preq->io_count has to be decrimented
> > before exiting from the function.
> > ---
> > drivers/block/ploop/io_kaio.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/ploop/io_kaio.c b/drivers/block/ploop/io_kaio.c
> > index 2e48d13..6d922f5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/ploop/io_kaio.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/ploop/io_kaio.c
> > @@ -686,6 +686,7 @@ kaio_io_page(struct ploop_io * io, int op, struct
> > ploop_request * preq,
> > err, (op == IOCB_CMD_WRITE_ITER) ? "WRITE" : "READ",
> > preq->eng_state, preq->state, pos);
> > PLOOP_REQ_SET_ERROR(preq, err);
> > + ploop_complete_io_request(preq);
> Kostja pointed me this patch for vz6.
> vz6 seems is affected too,
> however I think it's better to use atomic_dec(&preq->io_count) here:
> it should balance atomic_inc called before aio_kernel_submit()
> and should not double ploop_complete_io_request called below.
There is nothing bad to call ploop_complete_io_request() twice. In a
success case, this reference is dropped by kaio_rw_kreq_complete(),
which calls ploop_complete_io_request() too.
> How do you think?
> > }
> > out:
> > --
> > 22.214.171.124
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel@openvz.org
> > https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Devel mailing list