Re: [RFC PATCH liburing v1 1/4] syscall: Add io_uring syscall functions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:07 PM Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --- a/src/include/liburing.h
> +++ b/src/include/liburing.h
> @@ -202,6 +202,14 @@ int io_uring_register_file_alloc_range(struct io_uring *ring,
>  int io_uring_register_notifications(struct io_uring *ring, unsigned nr,
>                                     struct io_uring_notification_slot *slots);
>  int io_uring_unregister_notifications(struct io_uring *ring);
> +int io_uring_enter(unsigned int fd, unsigned int to_submit,
> +                  unsigned int min_complete, unsigned int flags,
> +                  sigset_t *sig);
> +int io_uring_enter2(int fd, unsigned to_submit, unsigned min_complete,
> +                   unsigned flags, sigset_t *sig, int sz);
> +int io_uring_setup(unsigned entries, struct io_uring_params *p);
> +int io_uring_register(int fd, unsigned opcode, const void *arg,
> +                     unsigned nr_args);

Can we be consistent about using "int fd"? And either standardize on
"unsigned" or "unsigned int"? Looks like syscalls should maybe be
separated by an empty line from the register/unregister functions in
the header file.

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/syscall.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> +
> +#include "lib.h"

Looks like this include is unused?

Other than that,
Reviewed-by: Caleb Sander <csander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux