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