On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:45:26AM +0100, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 06:42:10AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: > > > - We may not be able to use RWF_APPEND, and need exposing a new > > > type/flag (RWF_INDIRECT_OFFSET etc.) user-space. Not sure if this > > > sounds outrageous, but is it OK to have uring-only flag which can be > > > combined with RWF_APPEND? > > > > Why ? Where is the problem ? O_APPEND/RWF_APPEND is currently meaningless for > > raw block device accesses. We could certainly define a meaning for these in the > > context of zoned block devices. > > We can't just add a meaning for O_APPEND on block devices now, Make sense. Is a new call system call for nameless writes called for instead then? Then there is no baggage. Or is this completely stupid? > as it was previously silently ignored. I also really don't think any > of these semantics even fit the block device to start with. If you > want to work on raw zones use zonefs, that's what is exists for. Using zonefs adds a slight VFS overhead. Fine if we want to live with that, but I have a feeling if we want to do something like just testing hot paths alone to compare apples to apples we'd want something more fine grained. Luis
