On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 06:58:06AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kent.
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:00:20PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > However, I don't think it's a good idea to try to implement something
> > > which is a neutral transport of opaque data between userland and lower
>
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:15:26PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Kent Overstreet writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Kent Overstreet writes:
> >>
> >> > So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> >> > add an interface to
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:15:26PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 06:58:06AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:00:20PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
However, I don't think it's a good idea to try to implement something
which is a neutral transport of opaque data between userland and lower
layers.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:41:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > > Kent Overstreet writes:
>
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:00:20PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > However, I don't think it's a good idea to try to implement something
> > which is a neutral transport of opaque data between userland and lower
> > layers. Things like that sound attractive with unlimited
> >
Kent Overstreet writes:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Kent Overstreet writes:
>>
>> > So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
>> > add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
>> > pwrite().
>> >
>>
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:00:20PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
However, I don't think it's a good idea to try to implement something
which is a neutral transport of opaque data between userland and lower
layers. Things like that sound attractive with unlimited
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:41:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:41:06AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kent.
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:41:13PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Seems to me it'd be no different from security considerations when
> > introducing new ioctls. I.e., messy, ad hoc, easy to get wrong, but
> >
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > Kent Overstreet writes:
> > >
> > > > So, I and other people keep running into things where we
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:41:13PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Seems to me it'd be no different from security considerations when
> introducing new ioctls. I.e., messy, ad hoc, easy to get wrong, but
> sometimes no way around it.
>
> It really has to be ad hoc if it's
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Kent Overstreet writes:
> >
> > > So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> > > add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Kent Overstreet writes:
>
> > So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> > add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
> > pwrite().
> >
> > A few examples:
> >
> > * IO
> "Kent" == Kent Overstreet writes:
>> Hmm, careful here. I think that in DIF/DIX the checksums are
>> per-sector, not per IO, right? That'd mean that the PAGE_SIZE attr
>> limit in this patch would be magically creating different max IO size
>> limits on different architectures. That
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:43:23AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> > The generic code wouldn't know about any user pointers inside
> > attributes, so it'd have to be downstream consumers. Hopefully there
> > won't be many attributes with user pointers in them (I don't expect
> > there to be), so we
Kent Overstreet writes:
> So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
> pwrite().
How would you enumerate this?
How does the application know what the underlying stack supports/need?
How is
> The generic code wouldn't know about any user pointers inside
> attributes, so it'd have to be downstream consumers. Hopefully there
> won't be many attributes with user pointers in them (I don't expect
> there to be), so we won't have too much of this messyness.
I really don't like this. We
Kent Overstreet writes:
> So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
> pwrite().
>
> A few examples:
>
> * IO scheduler hints. Some userspace program wants to, per IO, specify
> either
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
A few examples:
* IO scheduler hints. Some userspace program wants to, per IO, specify
The generic code wouldn't know about any user pointers inside
attributes, so it'd have to be downstream consumers. Hopefully there
won't be many attributes with user pointers in them (I don't expect
there to be), so we won't have too much of this messyness.
I really don't like this. We
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
How would you enumerate this?
How does the application know what the underlying stack
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:43:23AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
The generic code wouldn't know about any user pointers inside
attributes, so it'd have to be downstream consumers. Hopefully there
won't be many attributes with user pointers in them (I don't expect
there to be), so we won't have
Kent == Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
Hmm, careful here. I think that in DIF/DIX the checksums are
per-sector, not per IO, right? That'd mean that the PAGE_SIZE attr
limit in this patch would be magically creating different max IO size
limits on different architectures.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
A few examples:
*
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary...
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:41:13PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Seems to me it'd be no different from security considerations when
introducing new ioctls. I.e., messy, ad hoc, easy to get wrong, but
sometimes no way around it.
It really has to be ad hoc if it's extensible,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:41:17PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Kent Overstreet koverstr...@google.com writes:
So, I and other people keep running into things
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:41:06AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:41:13PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Seems to me it'd be no different from security considerations when
introducing new ioctls. I.e., messy, ad hoc, easy to get wrong, but
sometimes no way
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:44:39PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> And what about duplicate instances of a given attribute id? Use the
> first? The last? Error? Depends on the id?
I thought of a better idea, instead of explicitly checking for
disallowed dups:
We want to return -ENOTHANDLED for
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:44:39PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> > Not just per sector, Per hardware sector. For passing around checksums
> > userspace would have to find out the hardware sector size and checksum
> > type/size via a different interface, and then the attribute would
> > contain a
> Not just per sector, Per hardware sector. For passing around checksums
> userspace would have to find out the hardware sector size and checksum
> type/size via a different interface, and then the attribute would
> contain a pointer to a buffer that can hold the appropriate number of
> checksums.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:12:22PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:23:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> > add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
> > pwrite().
>
>
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:23:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
> add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
> pwrite().
Sure. Martin (cc:ed) will sympathize.
> A few examples:
>
> * IO
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
A few examples:
* IO scheduler hints. Some userspace program wants to, per IO, specify
either priorities or a cgroup - by specifying a cgroup
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
A few examples:
* IO scheduler hints. Some userspace program wants to, per IO, specify
either priorities or a cgroup - by specifying a cgroup
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:23:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
Sure. Martin (cc:ed) will sympathize.
A few examples:
* IO scheduler
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:12:22PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:23:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
So, I and other people keep running into things where we really need to
add an interface to pass some auxiliary... stuff along with a pread() or
pwrite().
Sure.
Not just per sector, Per hardware sector. For passing around checksums
userspace would have to find out the hardware sector size and checksum
type/size via a different interface, and then the attribute would
contain a pointer to a buffer that can hold the appropriate number of
checksums.
All
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:44:39PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
Not just per sector, Per hardware sector. For passing around checksums
userspace would have to find out the hardware sector size and checksum
type/size via a different interface, and then the attribute would
contain a pointer to a
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:44:39PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
And what about duplicate instances of a given attribute id? Use the
first? The last? Error? Depends on the id?
I thought of a better idea, instead of explicitly checking for
disallowed dups:
We want to return -ENOTHANDLED for not
42 matches
Mail list logo
