Re: [PATCH] io_uring: add io_uring_enter(2) fixed file support

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

>> I'll take a look at liburing and see what we need to do there. I think
>> the sanest thing to do here is say that using a registered ring fd means
>> you cannot share the ring, ever. And then just have a
>> ring->enter_ring_fd which is normally just set to ring_fd when the ring
>> is setup, and if you register the ring fd, then we set it to whatever
>> the registered value is. Everything calling io_uring_enter() then just
>> needs to be modified to use ->enter_ring_fd instead of ->ring_fd.
> ok, look forward to use this api.

Can you take a look at the registered-ring branch for liburing:

https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/liburing/log/?h=registered-ring

which has the basic plumbing for it. Comments (or patches) welcome!

Few things I don't really love:

1) You need to call io_uring_register_ring_fd() after setting up the
   ring. We could provide init helpers for that, which just do queue
   init and then register ring. Maybe that'd make it more likely to get
   picked up by applications.

2) For the setup where you do share the ring between a submitter and
   reaper, we need to ensure that the registered ring fd is the same
   between both of them. We need a helper for that. It's basically the
   same as io_uring_register_ring_fd(), but we need the specific offset.
   And if that fails with -EBUSY, we should just turn off
   INT_FLAG_RING_REG for the ring and you don't get the registered fd
   for either of them. At least it can be handled transparantly.

>>>> Anyway, current version below. Only real change here is allowing either
>>>> specific offset or generated offset, depending on what the
>>>> io_uring_rsrc_update->offset is set to. If set to -1U, then io_uring
>>>> will find a free offset. If set to anything else, io_uring will use that
>>>> index (as long as it's >=0 && < MAX).
>>> Seems you forgot to attach the newest version, and also don't see a
>>> patch attachment. Finally, thanks for your quick response and many
>>> code improvements, really appreciate it.
>> Oops, below now. How do you want to handle this patch? It's now a bit of
>> a mix of both of our stuff...
> Since you have almost rewritten most of my original patch and now it
> looks much better, so I would suggest just adds my Reported-by :)

OK I'll post it, but Co-developed-by is probably a better one.

-- 
Jens Axboe