Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] io_uring: extend bvec registration

Joanne Koong
2026-04-03T17:30:17Z

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 9:21 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/26 10:09 AM, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > This series refactors and extends the io_uring registered buffers
> > infrastructure to allow external subsystems to register pre-existing bvec
> > arrays directly.
> >
> > The motivation for the patches in this series is to make fuse zero-copy
> > possible. These patches are split out from a previous larger
> > fuse-over-io_uring series [1]. The fuse zero-copy work that builds on top of
> > this is in [2].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joanne
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260116233044.1532965-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260324224532.3733468-9-joannelkoong@gmail.com/
> >
> > Changelog:
> > v4: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20260327172631.3380702-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com/
> > v4 -> v5:
> > * rebase to origin/for-7.1/io_uring
> > * drop the io_uring_registered_mem_region_get() patch
>
> Series looks good to me, but I don't think you used the right base? It
> does not seem to apply to for-7.1/io_uring, patch 1 runs into issues on
> the ublk part.
>
> Since this touches both and applies to neither right now, maybe do a
> respin and just base it on my for-next. Then I'll setup a
> for-7.1/io_uring-fuse branch that is just for-7.1/io_uring and
> for-7.1/block merged together.

Ahh that's weird, it applies cleanly to for-7.1/io_uring on my end (on
top of commit f847bf6d2930) but I do see some merge conflicts with
for-next for the ublk commit 24d4c90286b9.

I'll rebase this to for-next and send that out.

Thanks,
Joanne

>
> --
> Jens Axboe