Re: [Devel] [RFC PATCH vz9 v6 59/62] dm-ploop: fix how ENOTBLK is handled

2024-12-17 Thread Alexander Atanasov
On 13.12.24 15:24, Andrey Zhadchenko wrote: On 12/13/24 14:20, Alexander Atanasov wrote: On 13.12.24 15:17, Andrey Zhadchenko wrote: On 12/5/24 22:56, Alexander Atanasov wrote: direct IO  write result ENOTBLK or 0(in ext4 case) means retry IO in buffered mode. We wrongly assumed that it is

Re: [Devel] [RFC PATCH vz9 v6 59/62] dm-ploop: fix how ENOTBLK is handled

2024-12-13 Thread Andrey Zhadchenko
On 12/13/24 14:20, Alexander Atanasov wrote: On 13.12.24 15:17, Andrey Zhadchenko wrote: On 12/5/24 22:56, Alexander Atanasov wrote: direct IO  write result ENOTBLK or 0(in ext4 case) means retry IO in buffered mode. We wrongly assumed that it is a short write and handled it incorrectly Si

Re: [Devel] [RFC PATCH vz9 v6 59/62] dm-ploop: fix how ENOTBLK is handled

2024-12-13 Thread Alexander Atanasov
On 13.12.24 15:17, Andrey Zhadchenko wrote: On 12/5/24 22:56, Alexander Atanasov wrote: direct IO  write result ENOTBLK or 0(in ext4 case) means retry IO in buffered mode. We wrongly assumed that it is a short write and handled it incorrectly Since we can not retry in buffered mode, code is n

Re: [Devel] [RFC PATCH vz9 v6 59/62] dm-ploop: fix how ENOTBLK is handled

2024-12-13 Thread Andrey Zhadchenko
On 12/5/24 22:56, Alexander Atanasov wrote: direct IO write result ENOTBLK or 0(in ext4 case) means retry IO in buffered mode. We wrongly assumed that it is a short write and handled it incorrectly Since we can not retry in buffered mode, code is not ready for it. Take a different route. Thi