On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 09:42 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/2/24 9:41 AM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 11:20 -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote:
> > > +
> > > +int io_uring_register_napi(struct io_uring *ring, struct
> > > io_uring_napi *napi)
> > > +{
> > > + return __sys_io_uring_register(ring->ring_fd,
> > > + IORING_REGISTER_NAPI, napi, 0);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int io_uring_unregister_napi(struct io_uring *ring, struct
> > > io_uring_napi *napi)
> > > +{
> > > + return __sys_io_uring_register(ring->ring_fd,
> > > + IORING_UNREGISTER_NAPI, napi,
> > > 0);
> > > +}
> >
> > my apologies if this is not the latest version of the patch but I
> > think
> > that it is...
> >
> > nr_args should be 1 to match what __io_uring_register() in the
> > current
> > corresponding kernel patch expects:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux/commit/?h=io_uring-napi&id=787d81d3132aaf4eb4a4a5f24ff949e350e537d0
>
> Can you send a patch I can fold in?
>
Jens,
I am unsure of what you are asking me.
You would like me to send a patch to fix a liburing patch that has
never been applied AFAIK?
if the v9 patch has never been applied. Wouldn't just editing Stefan
patch by replacing the nr_args param from 0 to 1 directly do it?
