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 15:21:45 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Cc:     Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@kalray.eu>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
        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: <20190819212145.GB11202@localhost.localdomain>
References: <89520652.56920183.1565948841909.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
 <20190816131606.GA26191@lst.de>
 <469829119.56970464.1566198383932.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
 <20190819144922.GC6883@localhost.localdomain>
 <1d7819a9-9504-2dc6-fca4-fbde4f99d92c@grimberg.me>
 <20190819185749.GA11202@localhost.localdomain>
 <e639f7ce-5f1a-d4a5-f80e-9bf3bc1ff638@grimberg.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e639f7ce-5f1a-d4a5-f80e-9bf3bc1ff638@grimberg.me>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 02:17:44PM -0700, Sagi Grimberg 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.
> >>
> >> Isn't simply having a 64 variant simpler?
> > 
> > Could you provide more details on what you mean by this?
> 
> Why would we need to pass addresses and lengths if userspace is
> sending the 64 variant when it is expecting a 64 result?
> 
> Or maybe I'm missing something...

The recommendation was to have user space provide an SQE, i.e. 'struct
nvme_command', as input to the driver and receive 'struct nvme_completion'
in response. I am only pointing out that 'struct nvme_command' is
inappropriate for user space.