All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: namei.c LOOKUP_NONBLOCK (was "Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.10-rc")
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:55:58 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wicKF87YsiQpdK0B26Mk3UhRNrBEcOv7h=ohFKLjRM4DQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a522a422-92e3-6171-8a2e-76a5c7e21cfc@kernel.dk>

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:32 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> Here's a potentially better attempt - basically we allow LOOKUP_NONBLOCK
> with LOOKUP_RCU, and if we end up dropping LOOKUP_RCU, then we generally
> return -EAGAIN if LOOKUP_NONBLOCK is set as we can no longer guarantee
> that we won't block.

Looks sane to me.

I don't love the "__unlazy_walk vs unlazy_walk" naming - I think it
needs to be more clear about what the difference is, but I think the
basic patch looks sane, and looks about as big as I would have
expected it to be.

But yes, I'll leave it to Al.

And if we do this - and I think we should - I'd also love to see a new
flag in 'struct open_how' to openat2(), even if it's only to enable
tests. RESOLVE_NONBLOCK?

               Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-10 18:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-20 18:45 [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.10-rc Jens Axboe
2020-11-20 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-20 21:36   ` Jens Axboe
2020-11-21  0:23     ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-21  2:41       ` Jens Axboe
2020-11-21  3:00         ` Jens Axboe
2020-11-21 18:07           ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-21 22:58             ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-10 17:32               ` namei.c LOOKUP_NONBLOCK (was "Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.10-rc") Jens Axboe
2020-12-10 18:55                 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2020-12-10 19:21                   ` Jens Axboe
2020-11-21  0:29 ` [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.10-rc pr-tracker-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHk-=wicKF87YsiQpdK0B26Mk3UhRNrBEcOv7h=ohFKLjRM4DQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.