|
From: | John Snow |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH V3] file-posix: allow -EBUSY -EINVAL errors during write zeros on block |
Date: | Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:23:40 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 |
On 3/9/21 7:16 PM, ChangLimin wrote:
Since Linux 5.10, write zeros to a multipath device using ioctl(fd, BLKZEROOUT, range) with cache none or directsync return -EBUSY permanently.
When do we get -EINVAL? Both of the commits referenced below don't specifically mention it, so I am not sure in which circumstances that might arise.
Similar to handle_aiocb_write_zeroes_unmap, handle_aiocb_write_zeroes_block allow -EBUSY and -EINVAL errors during ioctl(fd, BLKZEROOUT, range). Reference commit in Linux 5.10:https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=384d87ef2c954fc58e6c5fd8253e4a1984f5fe02 <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=384d87ef2c954fc58e6c5fd8253e4a1984f5fe02>Although it will be fixed in 5.12, I think it's good to avoid similar problem in the future. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/53689a67-7591-0ad8-3e7d-dca9a626cd99@kernel.dk/ <https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/53689a67-7591-0ad8-3e7d-dca9a626cd99@kernel.dk/>
Wait, if they're fixing the function to actually apply a different fallback path, shouldn't we *not* allow EBUSY?
Signed-off-by: ChangLimin <changlm@chinatelecom.cn> --- block/file-posix.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/file-posix.c b/block/file-posix.c index 05079b40ca..4e132db929 100644 --- a/block/file-posix.c +++ b/block/file-posix.c@@ -1629,8 +1629,13 @@ static ssize_t handle_aiocb_write_zeroes_block(RawPosixAIOData *aiocb)} while (errno == EINTR); ret = translate_err(-errno); - if (ret == -ENOTSUP) { - s->has_write_zeroes = false; + switch (ret) { + case -ENOTSUP: + s->has_write_zeroes = false; /* fall through */ + case -EINVAL: + case -EBUSY: + return -ENOTSUP; + break;
oh, we're not "allowing" them, we're treating the failure *more seriously* so that we avoid attempting to call this function ever again for this FD.
Can you please add a brief comment here, something like: /* Linux 5.10/5.11 may return these for multipath devices */
} } #endif -- 2.27.0
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |