Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: break iopolling on signal

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

On 8/9/23 16:50, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/9/23 9:38 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 8/9/23 16:30, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 8/9/23 9:20 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Don't keep spinning iopoll with a signal set. It'll eventually return
>>>> back, e.g. by virtue of need_resched(), but it's not a nice user
>>>> experience.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we shouldn't clean it up a bit while at it, the ret clearing
>>> is kind of odd and only used in that one loop? Makes the break
>>> conditions easier to read too, and makes it clear that we're returning
>>> 0/-error rather than zero-or-positive/-error as well.
>>
>> We can, but if we're backporting, which I suggest, let's better keep
>> it simple and do all that as a follow up.
> 
> Sure, that's fine too. But can you turn it into a series of 2 then, with
> the cleanup following?

Is there a master plan why it has to be in a patchset? I would prefer to
apply now if there are not concerns and send the second one later with
other cleanups, e.g. with the dummy_ubuf series.

But I can do a series if it has to be this way, I don't really care much.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov