On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 06:48 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 6/9/21 4:08 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > It is quite frequent that when an operation fails and returns > > EAGAIN, > > the data becomes available between that failure and the call to > > vfs_poll() done by io_arm_poll_handler(). > > > > Detecting the situation and reissuing the operation is much faster > > than going ahead and push the operation to the io-wq. > > I think this is obviously the right thing to do, but I'm not too > crazy > about the 'ret' pointer passed in. We could either add a proper > return > type instead of the bool and use that, or put the poll-or-queue-async > into a helper that then only needs a bool return, and use that return > value for whether to re-issue or not. > > Care to send an updated variant? > No problem! It is going to be pleasure to send an updated version with the requested change! I will take that opportunity to try out my new patch sending setup ;-)
