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 9:58 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> 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
>>>>> experience.
>>>> 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.

No reason other than so we don't forget. But I can just do it on top of
this one.

Jens Axboe

[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