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
