From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] Add io_uring IO interface Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:12:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87tvhrpsqg.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> References: <20190128213538.13486-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190128213538.13486-6-axboe@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190128213538.13486-6-axboe@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:35:25 -0700") Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, jmoyer@redhat.com, avi@scylladb.com List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org * Jens Axboe: > +#define IORING_MAX_ENTRIES 4096 Where does this constant come from? Should it really be exposed to userspace? > +struct io_uring_params { > + __u32 sq_entries; > + __u32 cq_entries; > + __u32 flags; > + __u16 resv[10]; > + struct io_sqring_offsets sq_off; > + struct io_cqring_offsets cq_off; > +}; > +struct io_sqring_offsets { > + __u32 head; > + __u32 tail; > + __u32 ring_mask; > + __u32 ring_entries; > + __u32 flags; > + __u32 dropped; > + __u32 array; > + __u32 resv[3]; > +}; > + > +struct io_cqring_offsets { > + __u32 head; > + __u32 tail; > + __u32 ring_mask; > + __u32 ring_entries; > + __u32 overflow; > + __u32 cqes; > + __u32 resv[4]; > +}; Should the reserved fields include a __u64 member, to increase struct alignment on architectures that might need it in the future? > +#define IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS (1 << 0) Should this be unsigned, to match the u32 flags argument? (Otherwise using 32 flags can be difficult). Thanks, Florian -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2E9C169C4 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D742148E for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727372AbfA2MM7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:12:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53318 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725811AbfA2MM6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:12:58 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A18EC0828C7; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg2.str.redhat.com (dhcp-192-219.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.219]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1030819487; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:12:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, jmoyer@redhat.com, avi@scylladb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] Add io_uring IO interface References: <20190128213538.13486-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190128213538.13486-6-axboe@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:12:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20190128213538.13486-6-axboe@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:35:25 -0700") Message-ID: <87tvhrpsqg.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org * Jens Axboe: > +#define IORING_MAX_ENTRIES 4096 Where does this constant come from? Should it really be exposed to userspace? > +struct io_uring_params { > + __u32 sq_entries; > + __u32 cq_entries; > + __u32 flags; > + __u16 resv[10]; > + struct io_sqring_offsets sq_off; > + struct io_cqring_offsets cq_off; > +}; > +struct io_sqring_offsets { > + __u32 head; > + __u32 tail; > + __u32 ring_mask; > + __u32 ring_entries; > + __u32 flags; > + __u32 dropped; > + __u32 array; > + __u32 resv[3]; > +}; > + > +struct io_cqring_offsets { > + __u32 head; > + __u32 tail; > + __u32 ring_mask; > + __u32 ring_entries; > + __u32 overflow; > + __u32 cqes; > + __u32 resv[4]; > +}; Should the reserved fields include a __u64 member, to increase struct alignment on architectures that might need it in the future? > +#define IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS (1 << 0) Should this be unsigned, to match the u32 flags argument? (Otherwise using 32 flags can be difficult). Thanks, Florian