On 2/1/20 10:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > 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? So you just want to have them exposed? I'd be fine with that. I'll take a patch :-) -- Jens Axboe
