Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 7.0] io_uring/wait: honour caller's time namespace for IORING_ENTER_ABS_TIMER

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/23/26 8:45 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 08:23:13AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/20/26 5:40 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 5/20/26 5:18 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> From: Maoyi Xie <maoyixie.tju@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> [ Upstream commit 45d2b37a37ab98484693533496395c610a2cab96 ]
>>>>
>>>> io_uring_enter() with IORING_ENTER_ABS_TIMER takes an absolute
>>>> timespec from the caller via ext_arg->ts. It arms an ABS mode
>>>> hrtimer in __io_cqring_wait_schedule(). The conversion path in
>>>> io_uring/wait.c parses ext_arg->ts inline rather than going
>>>> through io_parse_user_time(). It therefore does not pick up the
>>>> time namespace conversion added by the previous patch.
>>>
>>> Once again - If you auto-pick this one, please also do the other one in
>>> the series, 9cc6bac1bebf8310d2950d1411a91479e86d69a1. Makes no sense to
>>> do just one of them.
>>
>> And once again, no reply. What is going on with stable these days?
> 
> Jens, as I've mentioned in the previous mail, I handle the AUTOSEL
> mails weeks after I originally sent them out for reviews.

And you think that's working fine? I would suggest that's a terrible
process. How are maintainers supposed to deal with that? Patches x and y
are autoselected and an email is sent out. Maintainers react to that,
either saying "no don't pick X" or "if you pick Y, please also do Z".
The expectation would then be a reply that says "ok, doing that" or
whatever might be appropriate there. Instead, it's just silence. And now
I have to follow-up MULTIPLE times to ensure the right thing is being
done. We're about 2 weeks into this particular incidence, and
hilariously, I still have no idea what the state is on your end. Did it
get dropped? Did the other one I asked for get picked up? Nobody knows!

At least Greg actually promptly replies for the non-autosel stuff he
does. Which is the ONLY thing that makes Fixes tags and CC stable
actually work. The AUTOSEL stuff, it does not. When it happens to pick
the right patches, yeah all is good. But when there's a problem, the
process is terrible, as evidenced by this particular patch.

> The volume of mails and patches makes it really difficult to give
> prompt answers here. I have no idea if
> 9cc6bac1bebf8310d2950d1411a91479e86d69a1 applies cleanly, whether I
> need to ask for a backport, or whether I should just drop
> 45d2b37a37ab9848 until I sit down and get to this batch of AUTOSEL
> commits.

If you can't handle basic replies when running AUTOSEL, then I don't
think you should have that process in the first place.

> If this process doesn't work well for you, I'm happy top skip all
> non-stable-tagged commits for io_uring. This is supposed to be only a
> best effort attempt to catch commits that slipped through the cracks.

Please don't do AUTOSEL for any patches for any subsystem that I am a
maintainer or co-maintainer of. Until this part of the stable tree
process can be improved, it's a net negative.

-- 
Jens Axboe