From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Noah Goldstein <[email protected]>
Cc: noah <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Alexander Viro <[email protected]>,
"open list:IO_URING" <[email protected]>,
"open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)"
<[email protected]>,
open list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: io_uring.c: Add skip option for __io_sqe_files_update
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:39:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFUsyfK8OSDzfNCCwVPD8O=Fp0XSHWQ+HRCiC36BA-rH+c9D7g@mail.gmail.com>
On 26/01/2021 18:43, Noah Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:24 PM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 26/01/2021 17:14, Noah Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 7:29 AM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/12/2020 02:10, Noah Goldstein wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 03:18:05PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/12/2020 06:50, noah wrote:> From: noah <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch makes it so that specify a file descriptor value of -2 will
>>>>>>> skip updating the corresponding fixed file index.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will allow for users to reduce the number of syscalls necessary
>>>>>>> to update a sparse file range when using the fixed file option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answering the github thread -- it's indeed a simple change, I had it the
>>>>>> same day you posted the issue. See below it's a bit cleaner. However, I
>>>>>> want to first review "io_uring: buffer registration enhancements", and
>>>>>> if it's good, for easier merging/etc I'd rather prefer to let it go
>>>>>> first (even if partially).
>>>>
>>>> Noah, want to give it a try? I've just sent a prep patch, with it you
>>>> can implement it cleaner with one continue.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Will get on it ASAP.
>>
>> Perfect. Even better if you add a liburing test
>
> Do you think the return value should not include files skipped?
>
> i.e register fds[1, 2, 3, -1] with no errors returns 4. should fds[1,
> 2, -2, -1] return 3 or 4 do you think?
>
> Personally think the latter makes more sense. Thoughts?
Let's just return @done, 4 in your case. Because otherwise locating which
index has failed would be hell. And it's consistent with delete (i.e. -1).
--
Pavel Begunkov
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-27 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-20 6:50 [PATCH] fs: io_uring.c: Add skip option for __io_sqe_files_update noah
2020-12-20 15:18 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-22 2:10 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-01-26 12:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-26 17:14 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-01-26 17:20 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-01-26 18:43 ` Noah Goldstein
2021-01-26 19:39 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox