On 30/12/2019 06:33, Brian Gianforcaro wrote:
>>>>> +static void __io_req_free_empty(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>>>
>>>> If anybody have better naming (or a better approach at all), I'm all ears.
>>>
>>> __io_req_do_free()?
>>
>> Not quite clear what's the difference with __io_req_free() then
>>
>>>
>>> I think that's better than the empty, not quite sure what that means.
>>
>> Probably, so. It was kind of "request without a bound sqe".
>> Does io_free_{hollow,empty}_req() sound better?
> 
> Given your description, perhaps io_free_unbound_req() makes sense?
> 

Like it more, though neither of these have a set meaning in io_uring context.
The patch already got into Jen's repo, so you can send another one, if you
think it's worth it.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov