On 25/10/2020 19:18, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/25/20 1:01 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 25/10/2020 18:42, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 10/25/20 10:24 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 25/10/2020 15:53, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> On 10/25/20 8:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>> io_poll_double_wake() is called for both: poll requests and as apoll >>>>>> (internal poll to make rw and other requests), hence when it calls >>>>>> __io_async_wake() it should use a right callback depending on the >>>>>> current poll type. >>>>> >>>>> Can we do something like this instead? Untested... >>>> >>>> It should work, but looks less comprehensible. Though, it'll need >>> >>> Not sure I agree, with a comment it'd be nicer im ho: >> >> I don't really care enough to start a bikeshedding, let's get yours >> tested and merged. > > Not really bikeshedding I think, we're not debating names of > functions :-) It's just not so important, and it even may get removed in a month, who knows. > > My approach would need conditional clearing of ->private as well, > as far as I can tell. I'll give it a spin. Maybe - poll->wait.func(wait, mode, sync, key); + poll->wait.func(&poll->wait, mode, sync, key); -- Pavel Begunkov
