On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 01:09:44PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> Eww. I know it's frustration for your if maintainers give contradicting >> guidance, but this is really an awful interface. Not only the pointless > > Because once you placed it at a fixed location nothing realistically > will be able to reuse it. Not everyone will need PI, but the assumption > that there will be more more additional types of attributes / parameters. So? If we have a strong enough requirement for something else we can triviall add another opcode. Maybe we should just add different opcodes for read/write with metadata so that folks don't freak out about this? > With SQE128 it's also a problem that now all SQEs are 128 bytes regardless > of whether a particular request needs it or not, and the user will need > to zero them for each request. The user is not going to create a SQE128 ring unless they need to, so this seem like a bit of an odd objection.
