Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] rsockets: retry for completion events upon interruption

[Sreedhar Kodali <srkodali-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

On 2014-09-18 03:43, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:27:05PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>> > +resume_get_cq_event:
>> >   	ret = ibv_get_cq_event(rs->cm_id->recv_cq_channel, &cq, &context);
>> >   	if (!ret) {
>> >   		ibv_ack_cq_events(rs->cm_id->recv_cq, 1);
>> >   		rs->cq_armed = 0;
>> > +	} else if (restart_onintr == 1 && errno == EINTR) {
>> > +		errno = 0;
>> > +		goto resume_get_cq_event;
>> 
>> I'm not convinced that this is desirable behavior.  If the thread
>> waiting for an event was interrupted, why does it make sense to
>> ignore the interrupt and return to waiting?  Couldn't the app detect
>> the return code and call back into rsockets in this case?
> 
> More broadly, it doesn't make sense for a library to check EINTR in
> one place without also checking every blocking syscall it makes.
> 
> Realistically, apps that want to use signals in this way will need to
> see the EINTR at the app level, while apps that don't care should be
> using SA_RESTART to prevent EINTR from being generated.
> 
> Jason

Hi Jason,

Thanks for your review comments.  I have reworked on the patch based
on your suggestions.  Please look into v5 of the patch that is sent
separately.

Thank You.

- Sreedhar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html