Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 22:43:02 +0530
From:   Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Javier =?utf-8?B?R29uesOhbGV6?= <javier@javigon.com>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, bcrl@kvack.org, hch@infradead.org,
        damien.lemoal@wdc.com, asml.silence@gmail.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mb@lightnvm.io,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        Selvakumar S <selvakuma.s1@samsung.com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] io_uring: add support for zone-append
Message-ID: <20200708171302.GB26480@test-zns>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <481e512a-0dd3-ae19-8f32-ed781af28038@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="----nai8lIH9ngBNHun9R6qswQcIIemhXBCkNXu5CagZqSM5j8ea=_e97d3_"
CMS-TYPE: 105P
References: <33b9887b-eaba-c7be-5dfd-fc7e7d416f48@kernel.dk>
        <36C0AD99-0D75-40D4-B704-507A222AEB81@javigon.com>
        <20200708163327.GU25523@casper.infradead.org>
        <CGME20200708163850epcas5p36f1f61ee4d77d31dc34c3bbe1d19f6fd@epcas5p3.samsung.com>
        <481e512a-0dd3-ae19-8f32-ed781af28038@kernel.dk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

------nai8lIH9ngBNHun9R6qswQcIIemhXBCkNXu5CagZqSM5j8ea=_e97d3_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:38:44AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>On 7/8/20 10:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:08:12PM +0200, Javier González wrote:
>>>> I just wanted to get clarification there, because to me it sounded like
>>>> you expected Kanchan to do it, and Kanchan assuming it "was sorted". I'd
>>>> consider that a prerequisite for the append series as far as io_uring is
>>>> concerned, hence _someone_ needs to actually do it ;-)
>>
>> I don't know that it's a prerequisite in terms of the patches actually
>> depend on it.  I appreciate you want it first to ensure that we don't bloat
>> the kiocb.
>
>Maybe not for the series, but for the io_uring addition it is.
>
>>> I believe Kanchan meant that now the trade-off we were asking to
>>> clear out is sorted.
>>>
>>> We will send a new version shortly for the current functionality - we
>>> can see what we are missing on when the uring interface is clear.
>>
>> I've started work on a patch series for this.  Mostly just waiting for
>> compilation now ... should be done in the next few hours.
>
>Great!

Jens, Matthew - I'm sorry for creating the confusion. By "looks sorted"
I meant the performance-implications and the room-for-pointer. For the
latter I was thinking to go by your suggestion not to bloat the kiocb, and
use io_kiocb instead.
If we keep, there will be two paths to update that pointer, one using
ki_complete(....,ret2) and another directly - which does not seem good.

On a different note: trimming kiocb by decoupling ki_complete work looks
too good to be done by me :-)

------nai8lIH9ngBNHun9R6qswQcIIemhXBCkNXu5CagZqSM5j8ea=_e97d3_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


------nai8lIH9ngBNHun9R6qswQcIIemhXBCkNXu5CagZqSM5j8ea=_e97d3_--