On 5/6/22 2:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 11:23:01AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> The top three patches here have a proposed solution for the 3 issues >> that I highlighted: >> >> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=for-5.19/io_uring-passthrough >> >> Totally untested... Kanchan, can you take a look and see what you think? >> They all need folding obviously, I just tried to do them separately. >> Should also get tested :-) > > I've also pushed out a tree based on this, which contains my little > fixups that I'd suggest to be folded. Totally untested and written > while jetlagged: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/block.git/shortlog/refs/heads/io_uring-passthrough > > Note that while I tried to keep all my changes in separate patches, the > main passthrough patch had conflicts during a rebase, which I had to > fix up, but I tried to touch as little as possible. Folded most of it, but I left your two meta data related patches as separate as I they really should be separate. However, they need a proper commit message and signed-off-by from you. It's these two: https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-5.19/io_uring-passthrough&id=b855a4458068722235bdf69688448820c8ddae8e https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-5.19/io_uring-passthrough&id=2be698bdd668daeb1aad2ecd516484a62e948547 Can you do those as proper patches? I did not do your async_size changes, I think you're jetlagged eyes missed that this isn't a sizeof thing on a flexible array, it's just the offset of it. Hence for non-sqe128, the the async size is io_uring_sqe - offsetof where pdu starts, and so forth. -- Jens Axboe
