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

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

On 8/9/23 17:01, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/9/23 9:58 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No reason other than so we don't forget. But I can just do it on top of
> this one.

Let me know whichever way you decide to take, or I'll just pull
and see when I get back to it.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov