On 8/9/23 10:01 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > 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. I applied yours and did the cleanup on top, running it through the usual testing and will send it out. So all good on this one. -- Jens Axboe
