From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6B0C2D0E4 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1CA221F1 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:24:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="HdzUkH8a" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726640AbgKTTXp (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:23:45 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:43098 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725805AbgKTTXp (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:23:45 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f169.google.com (mail-oi1-f169.google.com [209.85.167.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BA2D22254; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:23:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1605900224; bh=6utPp8y2IfYmogUP7teaB/ARZBuClgZZ+lpoxaOZ1Tw=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=HdzUkH8aXfOx06ArXihJtVhMjRyBFPYN5WiUGxcu+uPOQwa+qRego7DIDxlrJpc3z OnrL5XHCOB41fkEHRIq3W14m0i86yIC+Tb33nzfNVX3cDP5OLf1l/SGmMjmtrmKjd/ j6GJmogIJy3tnclRF3JshyrxKDgf52CK8xvmW8wU= Received: by mail-oi1-f169.google.com with SMTP id a130so3538242oif.7; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:23:44 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531F5d/sd2XemslXtgynMkG062nPnvri8ssuerARqx3JvwRFmShL aEbv4nYPEarRmvrXCwCxmSZpjPFObNJB4YFib0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3M4r4RIwLPKw4jM9j70Gq7pe8ELR64/eLX4GDAY/+QnF48WsYtKd8QomkWGuoX98DlbImVcer5fOZAV1UTlk= X-Received: by 2002:aca:180a:: with SMTP id h10mr7112996oih.4.1605900223419; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:23:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201118144617.986860-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> <20201118144617.986860-2-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> <20201118150041.GF29991@casper.infradead.org> <893e8ed21e544d048bff7933013332a0@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20201119143131.GG29991@casper.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:23:27 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] epoll: add nsec timeout support with epoll_pwait2 To: Willem de Bruijn Cc: Matthew Wilcox , David Laight , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , linux-kernel , Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , Arnd Bergmann , Shuo Chen , linux-man , Willem de Bruijn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 5:01 PM Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:13 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:13 PM Willem de Bruijn > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. > > I do have an initial patchset. As expected, it does involve quite a > bit of code churn to pass slack through the callers. I'll take a look > at your suggestion to simplify it. > > As is, the patchset is not ready to send to the list for possible > merge. In the meantime, I did push the patchset to github at > https://github.com/wdebruij/linux/commits/epoll-nstimeo-1 . I can send > a version marked RFC to the list if that's easier. Looks all good to me, just two small things I noticed that you can address before sending the new series: * The div_u64_rem() in ep_timeout_to_timespec() looks wrong, as you are actually dividing a 'long' that does not need it. * In "epoll: wire up syscall epoll_pwait2", the alpha syscall has the wrong number, it should be 110 higher than the others, not 109. > Btw, the other change, to convert epoll implementation to timespec64 > before adding the syscall, equally adds some code churn compared to > patch v3. But perhaps the end state is cleaner and more consistent. Right, that's what I meant. If it causes too much churn, don't worry about it it. Arndd