On 10/28/21 9:56 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 10/28/21 16:50, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/28/21 9:44 AM, Mikhail Malygin wrote: >>> Thanks for the feedback, we’ll submit and updated version of the series. >>> >>> The only question is regarding uapi: should we add a separate opcodes >>> for read/write or use existing opcodes with the flag in the >>> io_uring_sqe.rw_flags field? >>> >>> The flag was discussed in the another submission, where it was >>> considered to be a better approach over opcodes: >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-block/patch/20200226083719.4389-2-bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Separate opcodes is, at least to me, definitely the way to go. Just >> looking at the code needing to tap into weird spots for PI is enough to >> make that call. On top of that, it also allows you to cleanly define >> this command and (hopefully?) avoid that weirdness with implied PI in >> the last iovec. > > Reminds me struggles with writing encoded data to btrfs. I believe > Omar did go for RWF_ENCODED flag, right? Exactly the same problem, yes. It ends up being pretty miserable, and there's no reason to go through that misery when we're not bound by only passing in an iovec. -- Jens Axboe
