Hi, On February 1, 2020 6:39:41 PM GMT+01:00, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 2/1/20 5:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As long as the syscalls aren't exposed by glibc it'd be useful - at >> least for me - to have liburing expose the syscalls without really >going >> through liburing facilities... >> >> Right now I'm e.g. using a "raw" >io_uring_enter(IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS) >> to be able to have multiple processes safely wait for events on the >same >> uring, without needing to hold the lock [1] protecting the ring [2]. >It's >> probably a good idea to add a liburing function to be able to do so, >but >> I'd guess there are going to continue to be cases like that. In a bit >> of time it seems likely that at least open source users of uring that >> are included in databases, have to work against multiple versions of >> liburing (as usually embedding libs is not allowed), and sometimes >that >> is easier if one can backfill a function or two if necessary. >> >> That syscall should probably be under a name that won't conflict with >> eventual glibc implementation of the syscall. >> >> Obviously I can just do the syscall() etc myself, but it seems >> unnecessary to have a separate copy of the ifdefs for syscall numbers >> etc. >> >> What do you think? > >Not sure what I'm missing here, but liburing already has >__sys_io_uring_enter() for this purpose, and ditto for the register >and setup functions? Aren't they hidden to the outside by the symbol versioning script? Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
