On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:59:42PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>On 4/21/22 12:57 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 4/21/22 19:49, Stefan Roesch wrote:
>>> On 4/21/22 11:42 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/22 23:51, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:14:39 -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote:
>>>>>> This adds the large CQE support for io-uring. Large CQE's are 16 bytes longer.
>>>>>> To support the longer CQE's the allocation part is changed and when the CQE is
>>>>>> accessed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The allocation of the large CQE's is twice as big, so the allocation size is
>>>>>> doubled. The ring size calculation needs to take this into account.
>>>>
>>>> I'm missing something here, do we have a user for it apart
>>>> from no-op requests?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pavel, what started this work is the patch series "io_uring passthru over nvme" from samsung.
>>> (https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20220308152105.309618-1-joshi.k@samsung.com/)
>>>
>>> They will use the large SQE and CQE support.
>>
>> I see, thanks for clarifying. I saw it used in passthrough
>> patches, but it only got me more confused why it's applied
>> aforehand separately from the io_uring-cmd and passthrough
>
>It's just applied to a branch so the passthrough folks have something to
>base on, io_uring-big-sqe. It's not queued for 5.19 or anything like
>that yet.
>
Thanks for putting this up.
I am bit confused whether these (big-cqe) and big-sqe patches should
continue be sent (to nvme list too) as part of next
uring-cmd/passthrough series?

And does it make sense to squash somes patches of this series; at
high-level there is 32b-CQE support, and no-op support.