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:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 01:24:34 +0300
From:   "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io-wq: expose IO_WQ_ACCT_* enumeration items to UAPI
Message-ID: <20210912222434.GD18053@altlinux.org>
References: <20210912122411.GA27679@asgard.redhat.com>
 <a6027db7-3ebc-6f12-2b58-4b068a346ee2@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a6027db7-3ebc-6f12-2b58-4b068a346ee2@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:29:41PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/12/21 6:24 AM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> > These are used to index aargument of IORING_REGISTER_IOWQ_MAX_WORKERS
> > io_uring_register command, so they are to be exposed in UAPI.
> 
> Not sure that's necessary, as it's really just a boolean values - is
> the worker type bounded or not. That said, not against making it
> available for userspace, but definitely not IO_WQ_ACCT_NR. It
> should probably just go in liburing, I guess.

If IO_WQ_ACCT_* were just boolean values, no enum would have been
introduced in the first place.  What's the benefit of hiding
the API in the implementation, or burying it inside liburing?


-- 
ldv