Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 6/18/24 8:06 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: >> We don't need to read the userspace buffer, and the kernel side is >> expected to write over it anyway. Perhaps this was meant to allow >> expansion of the interface for future parameters? If we ever need to do >> it, perhaps it should be done as a new io_uring opcode. > > Right, it's checked so that we could use it for input values in the > future. By ensuring that userspace must zero it, then we could add input > values and flags in the future. > > Is there a good reason to make this separate change? If not, I'd say > drop it and we can always discuss when there's an actual need to do so. > At least we have the option of passing in some information with the > current code, in a backwards compatible fashion. There is no reason other than it is unused. I'm fine with dropping it. I'll wait for feedback on the other patches and, if we need a new iteration, I'll skip this one. Thanks! -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
