Il 17/09/2013 18:09, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
> On 2013-08-13 16:22, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:45:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Yeah:
>>>
>>> - /* No AIO operations? Get us out of here */
>>> - if (!busy) {
>>> + /* early return if we only have the aio_notify() fd */
>>> + if (ctx->pollfds->len == 1) {
>>> return progress;
>>> }
>>>
>>> So this is even worse for my use case.
>>
>> We can change the semantics of aio_poll() so long as we don't break
>> existing callers and tests. It would make sense to do that after
>> merging the io_flush and AioContext timers series.
>
> Need to pick up this topic again because above change is now mainline
> and breaks aio_poll-based timer threads:
>
> How can we make progress with overcoming that check, at least for the
> timer thread use case? Additional argument "truly_block" for aio_poll?
I wonder if we still need that "if" at all. Guys, do you remember what
it is good for? O:-)
Paolo
