On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 09:05:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/10/22 8:58?AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 08:36:11AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> Hi Linus, > >> > >> I've had this done for months and posted a few times, but little > >> attention has been received. > > > > I personally think this is particularly cool, for having faced the > > same needs in the past. I'm just wondering how long we'll avoid the > > need for marking certain FDs as urgent (i.e. for inter-thread wakeup) > > which would bypass the min delay. > > Thanks! No opinion on urgent fds, it's not something I have looked > into... We'll see over time anyway :-) > > This last patch fixes a bug introduced by the 5th one. Why not squash it > > instead of purposely introducing a bug then its fix ? Or maybe it was > > just overlooked when you sent the PR ? > > I didn't want to rebase it, so I just put the fix at the end. Not that > important imho, only issue there was an ltp case getting a wrong error > value. Hence didn't deem it important enough to warrant a rebase. OK. I tend to prefer making sure that a bisect session can never end up in the middle of a patch set for a reason other than a yet-undiscovered bug, that's why I was asking. Thanks, Willy
