Hello Jens, Thank you for your answer on this newbie question :) On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:57 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think the change is correct. That's not saying that the original > code is necessarily correct, though! Basically there are two cases there: > > 1) We haven't gotten a completion yet, we'll wait for it. > 2) We already found at least one completion. We don't want > to _wait_ for more, but we can peek and see if there are more. > > Hence we don't want to turn case 2 into a loop, we should just > continue. ok so in fact I think I understand that my usage is incorrect: 1- if I'm in the case of being able to do other things while waiting for data available using `io_uring_peek_cqe`, I should use it and come back later when getting a -EAGAIN. 2- it is useless to do a loop on `io_uring_peek_cqe` because in that case, I should simply do a `io_uring_wait_cqe` is that correct? > How is it currently failing for you? While trying to open/read/close multiple files, I first thought that, because I had one successful `io_uring_wait_cqe`, I could then loop on `io_uring_peek_cqe` and get all my data. I now realise my assumption was completely wrong and this example was just written that way to show two different possibilities of getting results. -- William
