On 11/12/24 00:53, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 03:25:59PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/7/24 3:25 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
...
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Any comment on the rest of the series?

Ming, it's dragging on because it's over complicated. I very much want
it to get to some conclusion, get it merged and move on, and I strongly
believe Jens shares the sentiment on getting the thing done.

Please, take the patches attached, adjust them to your needs and put
ublk on top. Or tell if there is a strong reason why it doesn't work.
The implementation is very simple and doesn't need almost anything
from io_uring, it's low risk and we can merge in no time.

If you can't cache the allocation in ublk, io_uring can add a cache.
If ublk needs more space and cannot embed the structure, we can add
a "private" pointer into io_mapped_ubuf. If it needs to check the IO
direction, we can add that as well (though I have doubts you really need
it, read-only might makes sense, write-only not so much). We'll also
merge Jens' patch allowing to remove a buffer with a request.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov