Re: [PATCH 4/7] O_NONBLOCK flag for readv2/preadv2
From: Milosz Tanski
Date: Tue Sep 16 2014 - 15:44:20 EST
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Filesystems that generic_file_read_iter will not be allowed to perform
>> non-blocking reads. This only will read data if it's in the page cache and if
>> there is no page error (causing a re-read).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> @@ -1662,6 +1676,10 @@ no_cached_page:
>> goto out;
>> }
>> goto readpage;
>> +
>> +would_block:
>> + error = -EAGAIN;
>> + goto out;
>> }
>
> Why did you put the wouldblock label inside the loop? That should be
> pushed down to just above out, and then you can get rid of the goto.
When I put the code outside the loop it actually looked worse (imo):
}
goto out;
would_block:
error = -EAGAIN;
out:
...
>
> Other than that, it looks like you put the check in all the right places
> in that function.
>
>> out:
>> @@ -1697,6 +1715,9 @@ generic_file_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter, int flags)
>> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
>> loff_t size;
>>
>> + if (flags & O_NONBLOCK)
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> +
>
> If a program is attempting non-blocking reads on a file opened with
> O_DIRECT, I think returning -EAGAIN is very misleading. Better to
> return -EINVAL in this case, and maybe check that earlier in the stack?
Point taken and I can fix this for the next version further up the
stack. A longer term question is how the flags the file is open with
interact with the read/write flags ... since I imagine folks will want
to add other flags (like force a SYNC write).
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
--
Milosz Tanski
CTO
16 East 34th Street, 15th floor
New York, NY 10016
p: 646-253-9055
e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/