在 2021/9/4 上午12:29, Jens Axboe 写道:
On 9/3/21 5:00 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
Update io_accept_prep() to enable multishot mode for accept operation.
Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index eb81d37dce78..34612646ae3c 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -4861,6 +4861,7 @@ static int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
static int io_accept_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
{
struct io_accept *accept = &req->accept;
+ bool is_multishot;
if (unlikely(req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -4872,14 +4873,23 @@ static int io_accept_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
accept->flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->accept_flags);
accept->nofile = rlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE);
+ is_multishot = accept->flags & IORING_ACCEPT_MULTISHOT;
+ if (is_multishot && (req->flags & REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC))
+ return -EINVAL;
I like the idea itself as I think it makes a lot of sense to just have
an accept sitting there and generating multiple CQEs, but I'm a bit
puzzled by how you pass it in. accept->flags is the accept4(2) flags,
which can currently be:
SOCK_NONBLOCK
SOCK_CLOEXEC
While there's not any overlap here, that is mostly by chance I think. A
cleaner separation is needed here, what happens if some other accept4(2)
flag is enabled and it just happens to be the same as
IORING_ACCEPT_MULTISHOT?
Make sense, how about a new IOSQE flag, I saw not many
entries left there.
