On 10/9/24 1:47 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 10/9/24 20:42, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/9/24 1:27 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>> + /* All data completions are posted as aux CQEs. */ >>>>>>> + req->flags |= REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT; >>>>>> >>>>>> This puzzles me a bit... >>>>> >>>>> Well, it's a multishot request. And that flag protects from cq >>>>> locking rules violations, i.e. avoiding multishot reqs from >>>>> posting from io-wq. >>>> >>>> Maybe make it more like the others and require that >>>> IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT is set then, and set it based on that? >>> >>> if (IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> req->flags |= REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT; >>> >>> It can be this if that's the preference. It's a bit more consistent, >>> but might be harder to use. Though I can just hide the flag behind >>> liburing helpers, would spare from neverending GH issues asking >>> why it's -EINVAL'ed >> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but why not make it: >> >> /* multishot required */ >> if (!(flags & IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT)) >> return -EINVAL; >> req->flags |= REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT; > > Right, that's what I meant before spewing a non sensible snippet. ok phew, I was scratching my head there for a bit... All good then. -- Jens Axboe
