Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Add io_uring command support for sockets

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:10:00 +0200

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 08:02:37AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 07:20:48AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 04:21:26PM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > > Enable io_uring commands on network sockets. Create two new
> > > SOCKET_URING_OP commands that will operate on sockets. Since these
> > > commands are similar to ioctl, uses the _IO{R,W} helpers to embedded the
> > > argument size and operation direction. Also allocates a unused ioctl
> > > chunk for uring command usage.
> > > 
> > > In order to call ioctl on sockets, use the file_operations->uring_cmd
> > > callbacks, and map it to a uring socket function, which handles the
> > > SOCKET_URING_OP accordingly, and calls socket ioctls.
> > > 
> > > This patches was tested by creating a new test case in liburing.
> > > Link: https://github.com/leitao/liburing/commit/3340908b742c6a26f662a0679c4ddf9df84ef431
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email-masked]>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Isn't this a new version of an older patch?
> 
> Yes, this should have tagged as V2.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email-masked]/#r

Great, also add what changed below the --- line please.

> > > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst
> > > @@ -361,6 +361,7 @@ Code  Seq#    Include File                                           Comments
> > >  0xCB  00-1F                                                          CBM serial IEC bus in development:
> > >                                                                       <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > >  0xCC  00-0F  drivers/misc/ibmvmc.h                                   pseries VMC driver
> > > +0xCC  A0-BF  uapi/linux/io_uring.h                                   io_uring cmd subsystem
> > 
> > This change is nice, but not totally related to this specific one,
> > shouldn't it be separate?
> 
> This is related to this patch, since I am using it below, in the
> following part:
> 
> 	+#define SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ _IOR(0xcc, 0xa0, int)
> 	+#define SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCOUTQ _IOR(0xcc, 0xa1, int)
> 
> Should I have a different patch, even if they are related?

Yes, as you are not using the 0xa2-0xbf range that you just carved out
here, right?  Where did those numbers come from?

thanks,

greg k-h