Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: break iopolling on signal

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


On 8/9/23 16:50, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 8/9/23 9:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 8/9/23 16:30, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 8/9/23 9:20 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
Don't keep spinning iopoll with a signal set. It'll eventually return
back, e.g. by virtue of need_resched(), but it's not a nice user

I wonder if we shouldn't clean it up a bit while at it, the ret clearing
is kind of odd and only used in that one loop? Makes the break
conditions easier to read too, and makes it clear that we're returning
0/-error rather than zero-or-positive/-error as well.

We can, but if we're backporting, which I suggest, let's better keep
it simple and do all that as a follow up.

Sure, that's fine too. But can you turn it into a series of 2 then, with
the cleanup following?

Is there a master plan why it has to be in a patchset? I would prefer to
apply now if there are not concerns and send the second one later with
other cleanups, e.g. with the dummy_ubuf series.

But I can do a series if it has to be this way, I don't really care much.

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