Re: [PATCH 0/2] send[msg]()/recv[msg]() fixes/improvements

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 18/03/2021 00:15, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>>> Sounds like 2/2 might too, does it?
>>>
>>> Do you think any application really expects to get a SIGPIPE
>>> when calling io_uring_enter()?
>>
>> If it was about what I think I would remove lots of old garbage :)
>> I doubt it wasn't working well before, e.g. because of iowq, but
>> who knows
> 
> Yes, it was inconsistent before and now it's reliable.

Yep, that where my hesitation was coming from, but the case I had
in mind is 

1) send() -> gone to io-wq
2) close the other end
3) send() fails, probably without SIGPIPE (because io-wq)
4) userspace retries send() and inline execution delivers SIGPIPE

But I guess we don't really care. In any case, let's drop stable tag,
maybe? I don't see a reason for it, considering that stable tries hard
to preserve ABI.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux