From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/31] fs: add new vfs_poll and file_can_poll helpers Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:08:53 +0000 Message-ID: <20180106190853.GH21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20180104080043.14506-1-hch@lst.de> <20180104080043.14506-3-hch@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180104080043.14506-3-hch@lst.de> Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:00:14AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > These abstract out calls to the poll method in preparation for changes to > those methods. FWIW, I would make vfs_poll() static inline __poll_t vfs_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pt) { if (unlikely(!file->f_op->poll)) return DEFAULT_POLLMASK; return file->f_op->poll(file, pt); } That's safe for any struct file, some of the callers already do just that, the ones that have vfs_poll() under the check for file_can_poll() will simply optimize that piece away and the few that rely upon the knowledge of file_operations they are dealing with (vhost, etc.) can bloody well cope with the cost of the check. -- 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