On 10/2/21 3:58 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/2/21 2:44 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> For some reason non-off IORING_OP_TIMEOUT always fails links, it's >> pretty inconvenient and unnecessary limits chaining after it to hard >> linking, which is far from ideal, e.g. doesn't pair well with timeout >> cancellation. Prevent it and treat -ETIME as success. > > That seems like a sane addition, but I'm not a huge fan of the > > #define IORING_TIMEOUT_DONT_FAIL (1U << 5) > > name, as it isn't very descriptive. Don't fail what? Maybe > > #define IORING_TIMEOUT_ETIME_SUCCESS > > instead? At least that tells the story of -ETIME being considered > success, hence not breaking a link. Agree, sounds better -- Pavel Begunkov
