On 2/10/23 3:08?PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:51 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Speaking of splice/io_uring, Ming posted this today: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20230210153212.733006-1-ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Ugh. Some of that is really ugly. Both 'ignore_sig' and > 'ack_page_consuming' just look wrong. Pure random special cases. > > And that 'ignore_sig' is particularly ugly, since the only thing that > sets it also sets SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK. > > And the *only* thing that actually then checks that field is > 'splice_from_pipe_next()', where there are exactly two > signal_pending() checks that it adds to, and > > (a) the first one is to protect from endless loops > > (b) the second one is irrelevant when SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK is set > > So honestly, just NAK on that series. > > I think that instead of 'ignore_sig' (which shouldn't exist), that > first 'signal_pending()' check in splice_from_pipe_next() should just > be changed into a 'fatal_signal_pending()'. > > But that 'ack_page_consuming' thing looks even more disgusting, and > since I'm not sure why it even exists, I don't know what it's doing > wrong. > > Let's agree not to make splice() worse, while people are talking about > how bad it already is, ok? I was in no way advocating for this series, but it seems relevant as we are discussing splice :-). I have pointed Ming at this discussion too. -- Jens Axboe
