[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200717081333.6z6rtwx3jtktwdvp@steredhat.lan>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:13:33 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] io_uring: use an enumeration for
io_uring_register(2) opcodes
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:20:53PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/16/20 2:51 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 7/16/20 2:47 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> On 16/07/2020 23:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 7/16/20 2:16 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>>> On 16/07/2020 15:48, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> >>>>> The enumeration allows us to keep track of the last
> >>>>> io_uring_register(2) opcode available.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Behaviour and opcodes names don't change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >>>>> index 7843742b8b74..efc50bd0af34 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> >>>>> @@ -253,17 +253,22 @@ struct io_uring_params {
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * io_uring_register(2) opcodes and arguments
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS 0
> >>>>> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_BUFFERS 1
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_FILES 2
> >>>>> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_FILES 3
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD 4
> >>>>> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_EVENTFD 5
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_FILES_UPDATE 6
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD_ASYNC 7
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_PROBE 8
> >>>>> -#define IORING_REGISTER_PERSONALITY 9
> >>>>> -#define IORING_UNREGISTER_PERSONALITY 10
> >>>>> +enum {
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS,
> >>>>> + IORING_UNREGISTER_BUFFERS,
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_FILES,
> >>>>> + IORING_UNREGISTER_FILES,
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD,
> >>>>> + IORING_UNREGISTER_EVENTFD,
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_FILES_UPDATE,
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_EVENTFD_ASYNC,
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_PROBE,
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_PERSONALITY,
> >>>>> + IORING_UNREGISTER_PERSONALITY,
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* this goes last */
> >>>>> + IORING_REGISTER_LAST
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>
> >>>> It breaks userspace API. E.g.
> >>>>
> >>>> #ifdef IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS
> >>>
> >>> It can, yes, but we have done that in the past. In this one, for
> >>
> >> Ok, if nobody on the userspace side cares, then better to do that
> >> sooner than later.
>
> I actually don't think it's a huge issue. Normally if applications
> do this, it's because they are using it and need it. Ala:
>
> #ifndef IORING_REGISTER_SOMETHING
> #define IORING_REGISTER_SOMETHING fooval
> #endif
>
> and that'll still work just fine, even if an identical enum is there.
>
Thank you both for the review!
Then if you agree, I'll leave this patch as it is by introducing the enum.
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
