On 11/15/19 2:22 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 15/11/2019 22:34, Jens Axboe wrote: >> How about something like this? Should work (and be valid) to have any >> sequence of timeout links, as long as there's something in front of it. >> Commit message has more details. > > If you don't mind, I'll give a try rewriting this. A bit tight > on time, so hopefully by this Sunday. > > In any case, there are enough of edge cases, I need to spend some > time to review and check it. Of course, appreciate more eyes on this for sure. We'll see what happens with 5.4 release, I suspect it won't happen until 11/24. In any case, this is not really staged yet, just sitting in for-5.5/io_uring-post as part of a series that'll likely go in after the initial merge. > REQ1 -> LINKED_TIMEOUT -> REQ2 -> REQ3 > Is this a valid case? Just to check that I got this "can't have both" right. > If no, why so? I think there are a lot of use cases for this. Yes, it's valid. With the recently posted stuff, the only invalid case is having a linked timeout as the first entry since that's nonsensical. It has to be linked from a previous request. We no longer need to restrict where the linked timeout appears otherwise. -- Jens Axboe
