From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] O_NONBLOCK flag for readv2/preadv2 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:19:07 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , Volker Lendecke , Tejun Heo To: Milosz Tanski Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Milosz Tanski's message of "Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:21:14 -0400") Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Milosz Tanski writes: > Filesystems that generic_file_read_iter will not be allowed to perform > non-blocking reads. This only will read data if it's in the page cache and if > there is no page error (causing a re-read). > > Signed-off-by: Milosz Tanski > @@ -1662,6 +1676,10 @@ no_cached_page: > goto out; > } > goto readpage; > + > +would_block: > + error = -EAGAIN; > + goto out; > } Why did you put the wouldblock label inside the loop? That should be pushed down to just above out, and then you can get rid of the goto. Other than that, it looks like you put the check in all the right places in that function. > out: > @@ -1697,6 +1715,9 @@ generic_file_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter, int flags) > size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); > loff_t size; > > + if (flags & O_NONBLOCK) > + return -EAGAIN; > + If a program is attempting non-blocking reads on a file opened with O_DIRECT, I think returning -EAGAIN is very misleading. Better to return -EINVAL in this case, and maybe check that earlier in the stack? Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org