On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:47:56AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 16:45 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:13:13PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > If the ioctl debate goes against ioctls, I think configfd would > > > > present > > > > a more palatable alternative to netlink everywhere. > > > > > > It'd be nice to be able to set up a 'configuration transaction' and > > > then do a > > > commit to apply it all in one go. > > > > Can't io-uring cmd effort help here? > > What io-uring cmd effort? The file operations version is the latest posted effort: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/20210317221027.366780-1-axboe@xxxxxxxxx/ > The one to add nvme completions? Um, I would not call it that at all, but rather nvme passthrough. But yes that is possible. But so are many other things, not just ioctls, which is why I've been suggesting I think it does a disservice to the efforto just say its useful for ioctl over io-uring. Anything with a file_operations can tackle on cmd suport using io-uring as a train. > If it's > the completions one, then the configfs interface currently doesn't have > an event notifier, which is what the completions patch set seems to > require. On the other hand configfd is key/value for get/set with an > atomic activate using an fd, so it stands to reason epoll support could > be added for events on the fd ... we'd just have to define a retrieval > key for an indicator to say which events are ready. It sounds like it could use it. Luis
