On 3/17/21 10:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:49:28AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> I will post it soon, only reason I haven't reposted is that I'm not that >> happy with how the sqe split is done (and that it's done in the first >> place). But I'll probably just post the current version for comments, >> and hopefully we can get it to where it needs to be soon. > > Yes, I don't like that at all either. I almost wonder if we should > use an entirely different format after opcode and flags, although > I suspect fd would be nice to have in the same spot as well. Exactly - trying to think of how best to do this. It's somewhat a shame that I didn't place user_data right after fd, or even at the end of the struct. But oh well. One idea would be to have io_uring_sqe_hdr and have that be op/flags/prio/fd as we should have those for anything, and just embed that at the top of both io_uring_sqe (our general command), and io_uring_whatever which is what the passthrough stuff would use. Not sure, I need to dabble in the code a bit and see how we can make it the cleanest. > On a related note: I think it really should have a generic cmd > dispatching mechanism like ioctls have, preferably even enforcing > the _IO* mechanism. Yes, we could certainly do that. I don't want to turn it into a free-for-all and the wild west of passthrough, some notion of coherent definitions would be prudent. -- Jens Axboe
