[v2,0/3] io_uring: Pass the whole sqe to commands

Message

Breno Leitao April 21, 2023, 11:44 a.m. UTC

These three patches prepare for the sock support in the io_uring cmd, as
described in the following RFC:

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/

Since the support linked above depends on other refactors, such as the sock
ioctl() sock refactor[1], I would like to start integrating patches that have
consensus and can bring value right now.  This will also reduce the patchset
size later.

Regarding to these three patches, they are simple changes that turn
io_uring cmd subsystem more flexible (by passing the whole SQE to the
command), and cleaning up an unnecessary compile check.

These patches were tested by creating a file system and mounting an NVME disk
using ubdsrv/ublkb0.

[1] [e-mail]/">https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/

V1 -> V2 : 
  * Create a helper to return the size of the SQE

Breno Leitao (3):
  io_uring: Create a helper to return the SQE size
  io_uring: Pass whole sqe to commands
  io_uring: Remove unnecessary BUILD_BUG_ON

 drivers/block/ublk_drv.c  | 24 ++++++++++++------------
 drivers/nvme/host/ioctl.c |  2 +-
 include/linux/io_uring.h  |  2 +-
 io_uring/io_uring.h       |  3 +++
 io_uring/opdef.c          |  2 +-
 io_uring/uring_cmd.c      | 13 ++++---------
 io_uring/uring_cmd.h      |  8 --------
 7 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

Comments

Kanchan Joshi April 21, 2023, 12:16 p.m. UTC | #1

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 04:44:37AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
>These three patches prepare for the sock support in the io_uring cmd, as
>described in the following RFC:
>
>	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
>
>Since the support linked above depends on other refactors, such as the sock
>ioctl() sock refactor[1], I would like to start integrating patches that have
>consensus and can bring value right now.  This will also reduce the patchset
>size later.
>
>Regarding to these three patches, they are simple changes that turn
>io_uring cmd subsystem more flexible (by passing the whole SQE to the
>command), and cleaning up an unnecessary compile check.

Reviewed-by: Kanchan Joshi <[e-mail]>

Jens Axboe April 28, 2023, 5:28 p.m. UTC | #2

On 4/21/23 5:44?AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> These three patches prepare for the sock support in the io_uring cmd, as
> described in the following RFC:
> 
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
> 
> Since the support linked above depends on other refactors, such as the sock
> ioctl() sock refactor[1], I would like to start integrating patches that have
> consensus and can bring value right now.  This will also reduce the patchset
> size later.
> 
> Regarding to these three patches, they are simple changes that turn
> io_uring cmd subsystem more flexible (by passing the whole SQE to the
> command), and cleaning up an unnecessary compile check.
> 
> These patches were tested by creating a file system and mounting an NVME disk
> using ubdsrv/ublkb0.

Looks mostly good to me, do agree with Christoph's comments on the two
patches. Can you spin a v3? Would be annoying to miss 6.4 with this, as
other things will be built on top of it.

Breno Leitao April 30, 2023, 2:39 p.m. UTC | #3

Hello Jens,

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:28:14AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/21/23 5:44?AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > These three patches prepare for the sock support in the io_uring cmd, as
> > described in the following RFC:
> > 
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
> > 
> > Since the support linked above depends on other refactors, such as the sock
> > ioctl() sock refactor[1], I would like to start integrating patches that have
> > consensus and can bring value right now.  This will also reduce the patchset
> > size later.
> > 
> > Regarding to these three patches, they are simple changes that turn
> > io_uring cmd subsystem more flexible (by passing the whole SQE to the
> > command), and cleaning up an unnecessary compile check.
> > 
> > These patches were tested by creating a file system and mounting an NVME disk
> > using ubdsrv/ublkb0.
> 
> Looks mostly good to me, do agree with Christoph's comments on the two
> patches. Can you spin a v3? Would be annoying to miss 6.4 with this, as
> other things will be built on top of it.

Sure. I've just sent V3 with all the fixes discussed in this email
thread.

Here is the link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/4/30/91