From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: Do not return ERESTARTSYS as a result of AIO (v2) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:13:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1284060970-26829-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20100909215303.GB3281@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62774 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753556Ab0IJPSa (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:18:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100909215303.GB3281@quack.suse.cz> (Jan Kara's message of "Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:53:04 +0200") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Kara writes: > On Thu 09-09-10 15:49:19, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Jan Kara 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