On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 03:58:18PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 5/22/25 00:31, Keith Busch wrote: > > --- > > block/blk-lib.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > block/ioctl.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 ++ > > include/uapi/linux/fs.h | 14 ++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > Any specific reason why this is a different patch, and not folded into > patch 2? It really feels odd to continuously updating interfaces which > have been added with the same patchset... Sure, I can do that if that's preferred. I just started this as simple as possible, and added new capabilities from there. I thought having the patch set show the journey might make it easier to review. If the evolving interfaces are not helping, though, I don't mind squashing them. > > case BLKCPY: > > return blk_ioctl_copy(bdev, mode, argp); > > + case BLKCPY_VEC: > > + return blk_ioctl_copy_vec(bdev, mode, argp); > > case BLKZEROOUT: > > return blk_ioctl_zeroout(bdev, mode, arg); > > case BLKGETDISKSEQ: > > And that makes it even worse; introducing two ioctls which basically do > the same thing (or where one is actually a special case of the other) > is probably not what we should be doing. There are many interfaces that have a single vs vectored user input. It's like read vs readv. The use cases I'm working with are in-kernel though so I don't strongly need these user interfaces here, but it's been great for testing. I developed some that would work well in blktests, for example.
