lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] eventfd: convert to ->write_iter()
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 06:03:15PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 07:00:19PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > While eventfd ->read() callback was replaced by ->read_iter() recently by
> > commit 12aceb89b0bc ("eventfd: convert to f_op->read_iter()"), ->write()
> > was not replaced.
> >
> > Convert also ->write() to ->write_iter() to make the interface more
> > consistent and allow non-blocking writes from e.g. io_uring. Also
> > reorganize the code and return value handling in a similar way as it was
> > done in eventfd_read().
>
> But this patch does not allow non-blocking writes. I'm really
> suspicious as you're obviously trying to hide something from us.

I already explained what my original motivation was and explained that
it's no longer the case as the third party module that inspired me to
take a look at this can be easily patched not to need kernel_write() to
eventfd - and that it almost certainly will have to be patched that way
anyway. BtW, the reason I did not mention out of tree modules in the
commit message was exactly this: I suspected that any mention of them
could be a red flag for some people.

I believed - and I still believe - that this patch is useful for other
reasons and Jens added another. Therefore I resubmitted with commit
message rewritten as requested, even if I don't need it personally. I'm
not hiding anything and I don't have time for playing your political
games and suffer your attacks. If they are more important than improving
kernel code, so be it. I'm annoyed enough and I don't care any more.

Michal Kubecek

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-19 19:48    [W:0.224 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site