Hi Stefan, On 12/1/21 4:19 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: > Hi Stefan, > >> On 11/29/21 5:08 PM, Clay Harris wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 29 2021 at 14:12:52 -0800, Stefan Roesch quoth thus: >>> >>>> This adds the xattr support to io_uring. The intent is to have a more >>>> complete support for file operations in io_uring. >>>> >>>> This change adds support for the following functions to io_uring: >>>> - fgetxattr >>>> - fsetxattr >>>> - getxattr >>>> - setxattr >>> >>> You may wish to consider the following. >>> >>> Patching for these functions makes for an excellent opportunity >>> to provide a better interface. Rather than implement fXetattr >>> at all, you could enable io_uring to use functions like: >>> >>> int Xetxattr(int dfd, const char *path, const char *name, >>> [const] void *value, size_t size, int flags); >>> >>> Not only does this simplify the io_uring interface down to two >>> functions, but modernizes and fixes a deficit in usability. >>> In terms of io_uring, this is just changing internal interfaces. >>> >>> Although unnecessary for io_uring, it would be nice to at least >>> consider what parts of this code could be leveraged for future >>> Xetxattr2 syscalls. >> >> Clay, >> >> while we can reduce the number of calls to 2, providing 4 calls will >> ease the adoption of the interface. >> >> If you look at the userspace interface in liburing, you can see the >> following function signature: >> >> static inline void io_uring_prep_fgetxattr(struct io_uring_sqe *sqe, >> int fd, >> const char *name, >> const char *value, >> size_t len) >> >> This is very similar to what you proposed. > > What's with lsetxattr and lgetxattr, why are they missing. > > I'd assume that even 6 helper functions in liburing would be able > to use just 2 low level iouring opcodes. > I'm open to also adding lsetxattr and lgetxattr. Do you have a use case in mind? > *listxattr is also missing, are there plans for them? > *listxattr is currently not planned. > metze >
