On 8/9/23 17:01, Jens Axboe wrote:
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.
Let me know whichever way you decide to take, or I'll just pull
and see when I get back to it.
--
Pavel Begunkov
