Re: [RFC PATCH v5 5/5] server: Replace redundant recv_socket status fields with force_async boolean field.

[Zebediah Figura]

This series of patches looks good to me at this point, enough that I 
think it's fair to drop the RFC from the title.

I feel like 1-2 are kind of awkward split the way they are—and the fact 
that you have to edit an earlier comment shows this. I might recommend 
merging those two.

Sorry for the persistent slowness in review—this is a hard patch set, 
but I should try to be more prompt regardless.

I just have one more nitpick:

On 2/4/22 14:52, Jinoh Kang wrote:
> - /* recv() returned EWOULDBLOCK, i.e. no data available yet */
> - if (status == STATUS_DEVICE_NOT_READY && !sock->nonblocking)
> - /* Synchronous, *blocking* I/O requested? */
> - if (!req->force_async && !sock->nonblocking)
>  {
>      /* Set a timeout on the async if necessary.
>       *

Note that the subsequent comment about when we set a timeout is pretty 
much superfluous now. The client isn't giving us a status anymore, and I 
think we don't need the comment anyway—the code is pretty clear now, and 
matches the expectation of when timeouts are set.