On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:21 PM Jens Axboe [off-list ref] wrote:

On 9/9/21 3:56 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

IOW, can't we have  that

        ret = io_iter_do_read(req, iter);

return partial success - and if XFS does that "update iovec on
failure", I could easily see that same code - or something else -
having done the exact same thing.

Put another way: if the iovec isn't guaranteed to be coherent when an
actual error occurs, then why would it be guaranteed to be coherent
with a partial success value?

Because in most cases - I'd argue pretty much all - those "partial
success" cases are *exactly* the same as the error cases, it's just
that we had a loop and one or more iterations succeeded before it hit
the error case.

Right, which is why the reset would be nice, but reexpand + revert at
least works and accomplishes the same even if it doesn't look as pretty.

You miss my point.

The partial success case seems to do the wrong thing.

Or am I misreading things? Lookie here, in io_read():

        ret = io_iter_do_read(req, iter);

let's say that something succeeds partially, does X bytes, and returns
a positive X.

The if-statements following it then do not trigger:

        if (ret == -EAGAIN || (req->flags & REQ_F_REISSUE)) {
  .. not this case ..
        } else if (ret == -EIOCBQUEUED) {
  .. nor this ..
        } else if (ret <= 0 || ret == io_size || !force_nonblock ||
                   (req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) || !(req->flags & REQ_F_ISREG)) {
  .. nor this ..
        }

so nothing has been done to the iovec at all.

Then it does

        ret2 = io_setup_async_rw(req, iovec, inline_vecs, iter, true);

using that iovec that has *not* been reset, even though it really
should have been reset to "X bytes read".

See what I'm trying to say?

                Linus