linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] io_uring/cmd: introduce IORING_URING_CMD

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

Message-ID: <CAPjX3FfzsHWK=tRwDr4ZSOONq=RftF8THh5SWdT80N6EwesBVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 08:27:26 +0200
From: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...e.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>, 
	Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, 
	Mark Harmstone <maharmstone@...com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] io_uring/cmd: introduce IORING_URING_CMD_REISSUE flag

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 21:04, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 6/19/25 1:27 PM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> > index 929cad6ee326..7cddc4c1c554 100644
> > --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> > +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
> > @@ -257,10 +257,12 @@ int io_uring_cmd(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> >                       req->iopoll_start = ktime_get_ns();
> >               }
> >       }
> >
> >       ret = file->f_op->uring_cmd(ioucmd, issue_flags);
> > +     if (ret == -EAGAIN)
> > +             ioucmd->flags |= IORING_URING_CMD_REISSUE;
> >       if (ret == -EAGAIN || ret == -EIOCBQUEUED)
> >               return ret;
>
> Probably fold that under the next statement?
>
>         if (ret == -EAGAIN || ret == -EIOCBQUEUED) {
>                 if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
>                         ioucmd->flags |= IORING_URING_CMD_REISSUE;
>                 return ret;
>         }
>
> ?

I'd argue the original looks simpler, cleaner.

> --
> Jens Axboe
>