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 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

[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