public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Kanchan Joshi <[email protected]>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
	"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
	"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
	"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
	"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next v5 4/4] nvme: wire up fixed buffer support for nvme passthrough
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:50:25 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220908104734.GA15034@test-zns>

On 9/8/22 4:47 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 02:51:31PM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>> ????? req = nvme_alloc_user_request(q, cmd, ubuffer, bufflen, meta_buffer,
>>> -??????????? meta_len, meta_seed, &meta, timeout, vec, 0, 0);
>>> +??????????? meta_len, meta_seed, &meta, timeout, vec, 0, 0, NULL, 0);
>>> ????? if (IS_ERR(req))
>>> ????????? return PTR_ERR(req);
>>
>> 14 Arguments to the function!
>>
>> Kanchan, I'm not pointing out to this patch it has happened over
>> the years, I think it is high time we find a way to trim this
>> down.
>>
>> Least we can do is to pass a structure member than 14 different
>> arguments, is everyone okay with it ?
>>
> Maybe it's just me, but there is something (unrelatedness) about these
> fields which makes packing all these into a single container feel bit
> unnatural (or do you already have a good name for such struct?).

I think the bigger question here would be "does it generate better
code?". Because it doesn't make the code any better at all, it just
potentially makes it more fragile. Packing into a struct is just a
work-around for the interface being pretty horrible, and it'd be a much
better idea to separate it out into separate functions instead rather
than have this behemoth of a function that does it all.

In any case, I think that's a separate cleanup that should be done, it
should not gate the change. It's already horrible.

> So how about we split the nvme_alloc_user_request into two.
> That will also serve the purpose. Here is a patch that creates
> - new nvme_alloc_user_request with 5 parameters
> - new nvme_map_user_request with 8 parameters

This is a good start though.

-- 
Jens Axboe

      reply	other threads:[~2022-09-08 14:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20220906063719epcas5p3157e79583a5412a3be81f3d96f8aaadd@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
2022-09-06  6:27 ` [PATCH for-next v5 0/4] fixed-buffer for uring-cmd/passthru Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20220906063723epcas5p23946fd33031aee591210af1c3cd2d574@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2022-09-06  6:27     ` [PATCH for-next v5 1/4] io_uring: introduce io_uring_cmd_import_fixed Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20220906063726epcas5p42f764b4c01b841dd1fc34abebcab02e6@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
2022-09-06  6:27     ` [PATCH for-next v5 2/4] io_uring: introduce fixed buffer support for io_uring_cmd Kanchan Joshi
     [not found]   ` <CGME20220906063729epcas5p1bf05e6873de0f7246234380d66c21fb9@epcas5p1.samsung.com>
2022-09-06  6:27     ` [PATCH for-next v5 3/4] block: add helper to map bvec iterator for passthrough Kanchan Joshi
2022-09-07 15:32       ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2022-09-08 10:52         ` Kanchan Joshi
2022-09-08 14:46           ` Jens Axboe
2022-09-08 15:11           ` Pankaj Raghav
     [not found]   ` <CGME20220906063733epcas5p22984174bd6dbb2571152fea18af90924@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
2022-09-06  6:27     ` [PATCH for-next v5 4/4] nvme: wire up fixed buffer support for nvme passthrough Kanchan Joshi
2022-09-07 14:51       ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2022-09-08 10:47         ` Kanchan Joshi
2022-09-08 14:50           ` Jens Axboe [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