On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:55 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/30/22 7:14 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 6:32 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 07:09:21PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote: > >>> Ok. If you are open to take new opcode/struct route, that is all we > >>> require to pair with big-sqe and have this sorted. How about this - > >> > >> I would much, much, much prefer to support a bigger CQE. Having > >> a pointer in there just creates a fair amount of overhead and > >> really does not fit into the model nvme and io_uring use. > > > > Sure, will post the code with bigger-cqe first. > > I can add the support, should be pretty trivial. And do the liburing > side as well, so we have a sane base. I will post the big-cqe based work today. It works with fio. It does not deal with liburing (which seems tricky), but hopefully it can help us move forward anyway . > Then I'd suggest to collapse a few of the patches in the series, > the ones that simply modify or fix gaps in previous ones. Order > the series so we build the support and then add nvme support > nicely on top of that. I think we already did away with patches which were fixing only the gaps. But yes, patches still add infra for features incrementally. Do you mean having all io_uring infra (async, plug, poll) squashed into a single io_uring patch? On a related note, I was thinking of deferring fixed-buffer and bio-cache support for now.
