On 6/19/24 8:55 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > 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. I think the rest look fine. The unsupported part was mostly a thing for backports, did use it myself internally once for the meta kernel. But I do think we should just kill it, so fine with doing that. -- Jens Axboe
