[RFC PATCH 1/6] server: Allow calling async_handoff() with status code STATUS_ALERTED.

[Zebediah Figura (she/her)]

On 1/27/22 02:44, Jinoh Kang wrote:
>> What we need to do here is similar to the infrastructure that already exists for device asyncs, namely "unknown_status" etc. It would be nice to use that instead of reinventing it, and although I haven't tried, it seems possible.
> 
> That one was on the table, too.  In fact it can also help eliminate the initial_status == STATUS_ALERTED check.
> 
> One catch is that async_set_unknown_status also sets direct_result to 0, which means to always fire off APC on completion.
> I wasn't entirely sure of what the effects of { .unknown_status = 1, .direct_result = 1 } would be.

I believe that !direct_result is correct here, actually. Note that we 
only get an APC when calling async_terminate(), but we shouldn't be 
introducing any extra terminate calls.

> 
>>
>> async_add_queue() as it is above is not great. I'm not sure that code actually works in every case;
> 
> !pending && terminated && alerted was the condition I was able to deduce to detect this exact condition.
> It does sound a little arbitrary though, especially since it's testing for three unrelated conditions.
> 
>> it definitely increases the mental burden even if it does. (Consider for instance that it would be triggered for *every* async).
>>
>> Instead what I'd suggest is to use the request introduced here in every case, even if the initial status was pending.
> 
> You mean, along with use of unknown_status?

In a sense they're orthogonal, but yes, I think doing both would help.