On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:04:16PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> There's another problem with that - currently ->poll() may tell you "sod off,
> I've got nothing for you to sleep on, eat your POLLHUP|POLLERR|something
> and don't pester me again". With your API that's hard to express sanely.
And what exactly can currently tell 'sod off' right now? ->poll
can only return the (E)POLL* mask. But what would probably be sane
is to do the same thing in vfs_poll I already do in aio poll: call
->poll_mask a first time before calling poll_wait to clear any
already pending events. That way any early error gets instantly
propagated.
> Another piece of fun related to that is handling of disconnects in general -
>
> static __poll_t proc_reg_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
> {
> struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(file_inode(file));
> __poll_t rv = DEFAULT_POLLMASK;
> __poll_t (*poll)(struct file *, struct poll_table_struct *);
> if (use_pde(pde)) {
> poll = pde->proc_fops->poll;
> if (poll)
> rv = poll(file, pts);
> unuse_pde(pde);
> }
> return rv;
> }
>
> and similar in sysfs.
Can't find anything in sysfs, but debugfs has an amazingly bad variant
of the above, including confidence ensuring commit description bits like:
In order not to pollute debugfs with wrapper definitions that aren't ever
needed, I chose not to define a wrapper for every struct file_operations
method possible. Instead, a wrapper is defined only for the subset of
methods which are actually set by any debugfs users.
Currently, these are:
->llseek()
->read()
->write()
->unlocked_ioctl()
->poll()
So anyone implementing say, read_iter/write_iter or compat_ioctl
silently doesn't get the magic protection..
Either way - those two will need updating for the new scheme if
we add proc/debugfs ops, so I better do them now and convert at least
one example each.
> Note, BTW, the places like wait->_qproc = NULL; in do_select() and its ilk.
> Some of them are "don't bother putting me on any queues, I won't be sleeping
> anyway". Some are "I'm already on all queues I care about, I'm going to
> sleep now and the query everything again once woken up". It would be nice
> to have the method splitup reflect that kind of logics...
Hmm. ->poll_mask already is a simple 'are these events pending'
method, and thuse should deal perfectly fine with both cases. What
additional split do you think would be helpful?
> What about af_alg_poll(), BTW? Looks like you've missed that one...
Converted for the next iteration.
> Another thing: IMO file_can_poll() should use FMODE_CAN_POLL - either as
> "true if set, otherwise check ->f_op and set accordingly" or set in
> do_dentry_open() and just check it in file_can_poll()...
I don't really see the point of wasting a fmode bit for it. But
if really want that I cna do it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
