Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/21/24 9:54 AM, David Howells wrote: > > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> However, I'll note that BDP_ASYNC is horribly named, it should be > >> BDP_NOWAIT instead. But that's a separate thing, fix looks correct > >> as-is. > > > > I thought IOCB_NOWAIT was related to RWF_NOWAIT, but apparently not from the > > code. > > It is, something submitted with RWF_NOWAIT should have IOCB_NOWAIT set. > But RWF_NOWAIT isn't the sole user of IOCB_NOWAIT, and no assumptions > should be made about whether something is sync or async based on whether > or not RWF_NOWAIT is set. Those aren't related other than _some_ proper > async IO will have IOCB_NOWAIT set, and others will not. Are you sure? RWF_NOWAIT seems to set IOCB_NOIO. David
