On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 13:59 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 6/13/22 12:08, Hao Xu wrote: > > On 6/13/22 18:11, Dylan Yudaken wrote: > > > This fixes two problems in the new provided buffer ring feature. > > > One > > > is a simple arithmetic bug (I think this came out from a > > > refactor). > > > The other is due to type differences between head & tail, which > > > causes > > > it to sometimes reuse an old buffer incorrectly. > > > > > > Patch 1&2 fix bugs > > > Patch 3 limits the size of the ring as it's not > > > possible to address more entries with 16 bit head/tail > > > > Reviewed-by: Hao Xu <howeyxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I will send test cases for liburing shortly. > > > > > > One question might be if we should change the type of > > > ring_entries > > > to uint16_t in struct io_uring_buf_reg? > > > > Why not? 5.19 is just rc2 now. So we can assume there is no users > > using > > it right now I think? > > It's fine to change, but might be better if we want to extend it > in the future. Do other pbuf bits allow more than 2^16 buffers? > I guess with + if (reg.ring_entries >= 65536) + return -EINVAL; it doesn't matter either way. we can always use those bits later if we need?
