Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:49:22 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To:     Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@kalray.eu>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        linux-nvme <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Samuel Jones <sjones@kalray.eu>,
        Guillaume Missonnier <gmissonnier@kalray.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands
Message-ID: <20190819144922.GC6883@localhost.localdomain>
References: <89520652.56920183.1565948841909.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
 <20190816131606.GA26191@lst.de>
 <469829119.56970464.1566198383932.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <469829119.56970464.1566198383932.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:06:23AM -0700, Marta Rybczynska wrote:
> ----- On 16 Aug, 2019, at 15:16, Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de wrote:
> > Sorry for not replying to the earlier version, and thanks for doing
> > this work.
> > 
> > I wonder if instead of using our own structure we'd just use
> > a full nvme SQE for the input and CQE for that output.  Even if we
> > reserve a few fields that means we are ready for any newly used
> > field (at least until the SQE/CQE sizes are expanded..).
> 
> We could do that, nvme_command and nvme_completion are already UAPI.
> On the other hand that would mean not filling out certain fields like
> command_id. Can do an approach like this.

Well, we need to pass user space addresses and lengths, which isn't
captured in struct nvme_command.