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. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
