Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu 09-09-10 15:49:19, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes: >> Next, assuming we can get ERSTARTSYS and friends, it will be the return >> code of a single iocb (reaped via io_getevents), not the return code of >> the io_submit system call. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just >> saying that your description of the problem is misleading. >> >> That objection stands, but just warrants correcting the problem description. > Hmm, I tried to address that by saying: > > As we must not leak ERESTARTSYS (and similar error codes) to userspace > as a result of an AIO operation > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > by which I meant the result value in the iocb structure. But apparently > it's not explicit enough. So would you be happier with something like > "result received via io_getevents() syscall"? That part looks fine, no need to change it. What tripped me up was this: (restarting the syscall isn't really an option because other AIO could have been already submitted by the same io_submit syscall) To me, that sounded like the result would be seen by io_submit instead of io_getevents. Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
