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 22:11:16 +0530
From:   Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, 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: <20200708164116.GA26480@test-zns>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200708142251.GQ25523@casper.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="----FBC7EIImzEv-3WQrgwRbJYn4xAlwhlhWWV1zALX9mq8rjZSB=_e96fa_"
CMS-TYPE: 105P
References: <20200706143208.GA25523@casper.infradead.org>
        <20200707151105.GA23395@test-zns>
        <20200707155237.GM25523@casper.infradead.org>
        <20200707202342.GA28364@test-zns>
        <7a44d9c6-bf7d-0666-fc29-32c3cba9d1d8@kernel.dk>
        <20200707221812.GN25523@casper.infradead.org>
        <CGME20200707223803epcas5p41814360c764d6b5f67fdbf173a8ba64e@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
        <145cc0ad-af86-2d6a-78b3-9ade007aae52@kernel.dk>
        <20200708125805.GA16495@test-zns>
        <20200708142251.GQ25523@casper.infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

------FBC7EIImzEv-3WQrgwRbJYn4xAlwhlhWWV1zALX9mq8rjZSB=_e96fa_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 03:22:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:28:05PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>> The last thing is about the flag used to trigger this processing. Will it be
>> fine to intoduce new flag (RWF_APPEND2 or RWF_APPEND_OFFSET)
>> instead of using RWF_APPEND?
>>
>> New flag will do what RWF_APPEND does and will also return the
>> written-location (and therefore expects pointer setup in application).
>
>I think it's simpler to understand if it's called RWF_INDIRECT_OFFSET
>Then it'd look like:
>
>+	rwf_t rwf = READ_ONCE(sqe->rw_flags);
>...
>-	iocb->ki_pos = READ_ONCE(sqe->off);
>+	if (rwf & RWF_INDIRECT_OFFSET) {
>+		loff_t __user *loffp = u64_to_user_ptr(sqe->addr2);
>+
>+		if (get_user(iocb->ki_pos, loffp)
>+			return -EFAULT;
>+		iocb->ki_loffp = loffp;
>+	} else {
>+		iocb->ki_pos = READ_ONCE(sqe->off);
>+	}
>...
>-	ret = kiocb_set_rw_flags(kiocb, READ_ONCE(sqe->rw_flags));
>+	ret = kiocb_set_rw_flags(kiocb, rwf);

It will sure go like this in io_uring, except I was thinking to use
io_kiocb rather than iocb for "loffp". 
I am fine with RWF_INDIRECT_OFFSET, but wondering - whether to build
this over base-behavior offered by RWF_APPEND.
This is what I mean in code (I used RWF_APPEND2 here)- 

static inline int kiocb_set_rw_flags(struct kiocb *ki, rwf_t flags)
        ki->ki_flags |= (IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
        if (flags & RWF_APPEND)
                ki->ki_flags |= IOCB_APPEND;
+       if (flags & RWF_APPEND2) {
+               /*
+                * RWF_APPEND2 is "file-append + return write-location"
+                * Use IOCB_APPEND for file-append, and new IOCB_ZONE_APPEND
+                * to return where write landed
+                */
+               ki->ki_flags |= IOCB_APPEND;
+               if (ki->ki_filp->f_mode & FMODE_ZONE_APPEND) /*revisit the need*/
+                       ki->ki_flags |= IOCB_ZONE_APPEND;
+       }
+

------FBC7EIImzEv-3WQrgwRbJYn4xAlwhlhWWV1zALX9mq8rjZSB=_e96fa_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


------FBC7EIImzEv-3WQrgwRbJYn4xAlwhlhWWV1zALX9mq8rjZSB=_e96fa_--