[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:53:16 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Fuzzey, Martin" <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
jewalt@...innovations.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>, atull@...nsource.altera.com,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Hans de G oede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] firmware: fix sending -ERESTARTSYS due to signal on
fallback
> "Unix tradition (and thus almost all applications) believe file store
> writes to
> be non signal interruptible. It would not be safe or practical to
> change that
> guarantee."
Yep everyone codes
write(disk_file, "foo", 3);
not while(..) blah around it.
> For these two reasons then it would seem best we do two things
> actually:
>
> 1) return -EINTR instead of -EAGAIN when we detect
> swait_event_interruptible_timeout()
> got interrupted by a signal (it returns -ERESTARTSYS)
> 2) Do as you note below and add wait_event_killable_timeout()
Pedantic detail that I don't think affects you
If you have completed a part of the I/O then you should return the byte
processed count not EINTR, but -1,EINTR if no progress was made.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists