Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
References: <20230628190649.11233-1-nmi@metaspace.dk>
 <20230628190649.11233-2-nmi@metaspace.dk>
 <d23bf48c-5bc9-aab6-4ca2-ebbb24a0878e@kernel.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.10.4; emacs 28.2.50
From:   "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@metaspace.dk>
To:     Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@wdc.com>,
        Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@wdc.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Matias Bjorling <Matias.Bjorling@wdc.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, gost.dev@samsung.com,
        Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] ublk: change ublk IO command defines to enum
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 09:11:15 +0200
In-reply-to: <d23bf48c-5bc9-aab6-4ca2-ebbb24a0878e@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <875y76zqlv.fsf@metaspace.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org> writes:

> On 6/29/23 04:06, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>
>>=20
>> This change is in preparation for zoned storage support.
>>=20
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>
>> ---
>>  include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>=20
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h b/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd=
.h
>> index 4b8558db90e1..471b3b983045 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
>> @@ -229,12 +229,23 @@ struct ublksrv_ctrl_dev_info {
>>  	__u64   reserved2;
>>  };
>>=20=20
>> -#define		UBLK_IO_OP_READ		0
>> -#define		UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE		1
>> -#define		UBLK_IO_OP_FLUSH		2
>> -#define		UBLK_IO_OP_DISCARD	3
>> -#define		UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_SAME	4
>> -#define		UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_ZEROES	5
>> +enum ublk_op {
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_READ =3D 0,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE =3D 1,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_FLUSH =3D 2,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_DISCARD =3D 3,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_SAME =3D 4,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_ZEROES =3D 5,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_OPEN =3D 10,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_CLOSE =3D 11,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_FINISH =3D 12,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_APPEND =3D 13,
>> +	UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_RESET =3D 15,
>> +	__UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_IN_START =3D 32,
>> +	__UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_IN_END =3D 96,
>> +	__UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_OUT_START =3D __UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_IN_END,
>> +	__UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_OUT_END =3D 160,
>> +};
>
> This patch does not do what the title says. You are also introducing the =
zone
> operations, and the very obscure __UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_XXX operations without =
an
> explanation. Also, why the "__" prefix for these ? I do not see the point=
...
> Given that this is a uapi, a comment to explain the less obvious commands=
 would
> be nice.

It is a little vague, I'll make sure to include a better description =F0=9F=
=91=8D

>
> So I think the change to an enum for the existing ops can be done either =
in
> patch 2 or as a separate patch and the introduction of the zone operation=
s done
> in patch 3 or as a separate patch.

I agree, the zone ops should not be introduced in this patch, I will
move them to patch 3. That is a mistake.

Best regards,
Andreas