public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Avi Kivity <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 liburing] add helper functions to verify io_uring functionality
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:14:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD-J=zaHpYPj-UOK46AhdKgSHQF2Hd5b_tjZ_+d9qAdu5VHXhA@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/31/20 6:52 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:31 AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/30/20 9:29 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/30/20 9:00 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>>> It is common for an application using an ever-evolving interface to want
>>>>> to inquire about the presence of certain functionality it plans to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Information about opcodes is stored in a io_uring_probe structure. There
>>>>> is usually some boilerplate involved in initializing one, and then using
>>>>> it to check if it is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch adds two new helper functions: one that returns a pointer to
>>>>> a io_uring_probe (or null if it probe is not available), and another one
>>>>> that given a probe checks if the opcode is supported.
>>>>
>>>> This looks good, I committed it with minor changes.
>>>>
>>>> On top of this, we should have a helper that doesn't need a ring. So
>>>> basically one that just sets up a ring, calls io_uring_get_probe(),
>>>> then tears down the ring.
>>>>
>>> I'd be happy to follow up with that.
>>>
>>> Just to be sure, the information returned by probe should be able to outlive the
>>> tear down of the ring, right ?
>>
>> Yeah, same lifetime as the helper you have now, caller must free it once
>> done.
> 
> Well, in hindsight, I should have called that
> io_uring_get_probe_ring() so io_uring_get_probe()
> doesn't take a ring.

Just change it - we just added it yesterday, and it's not released yet.
I don't break anything that's been in a release, and I maintain
compatibility between releases, but we can change it now.

> Alternatively, to keep things in a single function, I can change
> io_uring_get_probe() so that if it
> ring is NULL, we do our own allocation.
> 
> I actually kind of like that. Would that work for you ?

Not a huge deal to me, we can go that route.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-31 15:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-30 16:00 [PATCH v2 liburing] add helper functions to verify io_uring functionality Glauber Costa
2020-01-30 16:13 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-30 16:29   ` Glauber Costa
2020-01-30 16:31     ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-31 13:52       ` Glauber Costa
2020-01-31 15:14         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-01-31 15:27           ` Glauber Costa

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] \
    /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