On 11/25/21 09:21, Hao Xu wrote:
It's better to use REQ_F_IO_DRAIN for req->flags rather than
IOSQE_IO_DRAIN though they have same value.
Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index ae9534382b26..08b1b3de9b3f 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -7095,10 +7095,10 @@ static void io_init_req_drain(struct io_kiocb *req)
* If we need to drain a request in the middle of a link, drain
* the head request and the next request/link after the current
* link. Considering sequential execution of links,
- * IOSQE_IO_DRAIN will be maintained for every request of our
+ * REQ_F_IO_DRAIN will be maintained for every request of our
Don't care much, but it's more about the userspace visible behaviour, and so
talks about IOSQE_IO_DRAIN.
Looks good,
* link.
*/
- head->flags |= IOSQE_IO_DRAIN | REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC;
+ head->flags |= REQ_F_IO_DRAIN | REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC;
ctx->drain_next = true;
}
}
@@ -7149,7 +7149,7 @@ static int io_init_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_kiocb *req,
if (unlikely(ctx->drain_next) && !ctx->submit_state.link.head) {
ctx->drain_next = false;
ctx->drain_active = true;
- req->flags |= IOSQE_IO_DRAIN | REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC;
+ req->flags |= REQ_F_IO_DRAIN | REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC;
}
}
--
Pavel Begunkov
