On 10/25/20 1:32 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 25/10/2020 19:18, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/25/20 1:01 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 25/10/2020 18:42, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 10/25/20 10:24 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> On 25/10/2020 15:53, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 10/25/20 8:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>> io_poll_double_wake() is called for both: poll requests and as apoll >>>>>>> (internal poll to make rw and other requests), hence when it calls >>>>>>> __io_async_wake() it should use a right callback depending on the >>>>>>> current poll type. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we do something like this instead? Untested... >>>>> >>>>> It should work, but looks less comprehensible. Though, it'll need >>>> >>>> Not sure I agree, with a comment it'd be nicer im ho: >>> >>> I don't really care enough to start a bikeshedding, let's get yours >>> tested and merged. >> >> Not really bikeshedding I think, we're not debating names of >> functions :-) > > It's just not so important, and it even may get removed in a month, > who knows. Well it might not or it might take longer, still nice to have the simplest fix... >> My approach would need conditional clearing of ->private as well, >> as far as I can tell. I'll give it a spin. > > Maybe > > - poll->wait.func(wait, mode, sync, key); > + poll->wait.func(&poll->wait, mode, sync, key); Ah yeah, that looks better. -- Jens Axboe
