linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] io_uring: batch getting pcpu references

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b1ba1740-d058-fffe-faa8-0f431ecfa0d3@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:45:28 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Brian Gianforcaro <b.gianfo@...il.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] io_uring: batch getting pcpu references

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



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)