[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75e3c434-eb8b-66e5-5768-ca0f906979a1@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 08:36:50 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, asml.silence@...il.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, leit@...com, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, matthieu.baerts@...sares.net,
marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets
On 4/11/23 6:00 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> I am not sure if avoiding io_uring details in network code is possible.
>
> The "struct proto"->uring_cmd callback implementation (tcp_uring_cmd()
> in the TCP case) could be somewhere else, such as in the io_uring/
> directory, but, I think it might be cleaner if these implementations are
> closer to function assignment (in the network subsystem).
>
> And this function (tcp_uring_cmd() for instance) is the one that I am
> planning to map io_uring CMDs to ioctls. Such as SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ
> -> SIOCINQ.
>
> Please let me know if you have any other idea in mind.
I am not convinced that this io_uring_cmd is needed. This is one
in-kernel subsystem calling into another, and there are APIs for that.
All of this set is ioctl based and as Willem noted a little refactoring
separates the get_user/put_user out so that in-kernel can call can be
made with existing ops.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists