From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] Add io_uring IO interface Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 17:26:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20190123153536.7081-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190123153536.7081-6-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190128145700.GA9795@lst.de> <2729ab43-b2bf-44b0-d41d-dbb495ddffbf@kernel.dk> <20190129063043.GC2996@lst.de> <4b12d149-99f7-0b2e-0c3f-9b477ce48520@kernel.dk> <9a66c000-62f3-7567-7919-31e61e28defa@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9a66c000-62f3-7567-7919-31e61e28defa@kernel.dk> Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , linux-aio , linux-block , Jeff Moyer , Avi Kivity , Linux API , linux-man , Deepa Dinamani List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:19 PM Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/29/19 9:18 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:20 PM Jens Axboe wrote: > >> That's good info. I am currently using set_user_sigmask() for it. > >> I'd really like to avoid having to pass in a sigset_t size for the > >> system call, however. > > > > I really wouldn't do it, given that all other signal handling interfaces > > are prepared for longer signal masks. You /could/ probably extend > > it later with a flags bit to signify a longer mask instead of using > > the entire register to hold the bit length, it just seems really > > inconsistent with all other system calls. > > Damnit! OK, I'll keep what I currently have then. As long as you stay within the 6-argument syscall contraints, the cost of passing the length is basically free, right? Is there anything else you are worried about? Arnd -- 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