On 1/29/19 10:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>> @@ -118,12 +120,16 @@ struct io_kiocb {
>> struct list_head list;
>> unsigned int flags;
>> #define REQ_F_FORCE_NONBLOCK 1 /* inline submission attempt */
>> +#define REQ_F_IOPOLL_COMPLETED 2 /* polled IO has completed */
>> +#define REQ_F_IOPOLL_EAGAIN 4 /* submission got EAGAIN */
>> u64 user_data;
>> + u64 res;
>
> Should this be ret or error instead? res is kinda off. A little
> comment describing it won't hurt either. Last but not least with
> the actual errno value stored here we probably don't need the
> REQ_F_IOPOLL_EAGAIN flag, do we?
Yes good point, that flag pre-dates us having the error in there. I'll
rename the field, too.
>> + /*
>> + * Only spin for completions if we don't have multiple devices hanging
>> + * off our complete list, and we're under the requested amount.
>> + */
>> + spin = !ctx->poll_multi_file && (*nr_events < min);
>
> no need for the braces here.
Killed
>> +static int io_iopoll_getevents(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned int *nr_events,
>> + long min)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + if (list_empty(&ctx->poll_list))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + ret = io_do_iopoll(ctx, nr_events, min);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + break;
>> + } while (min && *nr_events < min);
>> +
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return *nr_events < min;
>
> The code looks a little clumsy to me. Why not:
>
> while (!list_empty(&ctx->poll_list)) {
> int ret = io_do_iopoll(ctx, nr_events, min);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> if (!min || *nr_events >= min)
> return 0;
> }
>
> return 1;
I think you messed up the 0/1 here, how about this:
while (!list_empty(&ctx->poll_list)) {
int ret;
ret = io_do_iopoll(ctx, nr_events, min);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
if (!min || *nr_events >= min)
return 1;
}
return 0;
--
Jens Axboe
