On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 02:30:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 08:41:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > That part is somewhat fishy - there's a case where you return a positive > > value > > and advance ->ki_pos by more than that amount. I really wonder if all > > callers > > of ->write_iter() are OK with that. Consider e.g. this: > > This should not exist in the latest version merged by Jens. Can you > check if you still see issues in the version in the block tree or > linux-next.
Still does - the problem has migrated into direct_write_fallback(), but that hadn't changed the situation. We are still left with ->ki_pos bumped by generic_perform_write() (evaluated as an argument of direct_write_fallback() now) and *not* retraced in case when direct_write_fallback() decides to discard the buffered write result. Both in -next and in mainline (since 6.5-rc1). _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
