From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Anuj Gupta <anuj20.g@samsung.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, kbusch@kernel.org,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, asml.silence@gmail.com,
anuj1072538@gmail.com, brauner@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
vishak.g@samsung.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/10] io_uring/rw: add support to send metadata along with read/write
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:55:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241107055542.GA2483@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241106121842.5004-7-anuj20.g@samsung.com>
> +enum io_uring_sqe_ext_cap_bits {
> + EXT_CAP_PI_BIT,
> + /*
> + * not a real extended capability; just to make sure that we don't
> + * overflow
> + */
> + EXT_CAP_LAST_BIT,
> +};
> +
> +/* extended capability flags */
> +#define EXT_CAP_PI (1U << EXT_CAP_PI_BIT)
This is getting into nitpicking, but is the a good reason to have that
enum, which is never used as a type and the values or only defined to
actually define the bit positions below? That's a bit confusing to
me.
Also please document the ABI for EXT_CAP_PI, right now this is again
entirely undocumented.
> +/* Second half of SQE128 for IORING_OP_READ/WRITE */
> +struct io_uring_sqe_ext {
> + __u64 rsvd0[4];
> + /* if sqe->ext_cap is EXT_CAP_PI, last 32 bytes are for PI */
> + union {
> + __u64 rsvd1[4];
> + struct {
> + __u16 flags;
> + __u16 app_tag;
> + __u32 len;
> + __u64 addr;
> + __u64 seed;
> + __u64 rsvd;
> + } rw_pi;
> + };
And this is not what I though we discussed before. By having a
union here you imply some kind of "type" again that is switched
on a value, and not flags indication the presence of potential
multiple optional and combinable features. This is what I would
have expected here based on the previous discussion:
struct io_uring_sqe_ext {
/*
* Reservered for please tell me what and why it is in the beginning
* and not the end:
*/
__u64 rsvd0[4];
/*
* Only valid when EXT_CAP_PI is set:
*/
__u16 pi_flags; /* or make this generic flags, dunno? */
__u16 app_tag;
__u32 pi_len;
__u64 pi_addr;
__u64 pi_seed;
__u64 rsvd1;
};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-07 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20241106122631epcas5p2575c59b7634e0077f8e5c654b5fd5dbb@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 00/10] Read/Write with meta/integrity Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 01/10] block: define set of integrity flags to be inherited by cloned bip Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 02/10] block: copy back bounce buffer to user-space correctly in case of split Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 03/10] block: modify bio_integrity_map_user to accept iov_iter as argument Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 04/10] fs, iov_iter: define meta io descriptor Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 05/10] fs: introduce IOCB_HAS_METADATA for metadata Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 06/10] io_uring/rw: add support to send metadata along with read/write Anuj Gupta
2024-11-07 5:55 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-11-07 7:26 ` Anuj gupta
2024-11-07 7:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-11-07 10:40 ` Anuj Gupta
2024-11-07 11:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-11-12 0:54 ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-11-12 6:51 ` Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 07/10] block: introduce BIP_CHECK_GUARD/REFTAG/APPTAG bip_flags Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 08/10] nvme: add support for passing on the application tag Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 09/10] scsi: add support for user-meta interface Anuj Gupta
2024-11-06 12:18 ` [PATCH v8 10/10] block: add support to pass user meta buffer Anuj Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241107055542.GA2483@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=anuj1072538@gmail.com \
--cc=anuj20.g@samsung.com \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=joshi.k@samsung.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=vishak.g@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox