IORING_OP_BUFFER_FREE suggests that buffers are registered somehow (?). How about instead having an explicit opcode that provides a buffer for a one-off use? A IORING_OP_PROVIDE_BUFFER registers a buffer as available, with buf_index (under different name) indicating a 'group'.
Mostly commented on the buffer ids width bit because it's ABI. Wondering whether cqe.flags ought to be split into two parts. Perhaps that'd still be ok because there's no uses of it yet?
-
-
Not close enough to worry about ABI yet ;-) We could split the flags, it is indeed unused. But 2G buffer IDs is probably enough? And leaves us free to use the flags in the future as well.
-
For future extensibility it seems like it'd be good to have space for additional cqe flags that can be specified concurrently with IORING_CQE_F_BUFFER, Which'd be harder if 31 bit buffer ids were allowed initially. Hence wondering about a more explicit split of flag & "tag".
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.