Sorry for not replying to the earlier version, and thanks for doing this work.
I wonder if instead of using our own structure we'd just use a full nvme SQE for the input and CQE for that output. Even if we reserve a few fields that means we are ready for any newly used field (at least until the SQE/CQE sizes are expanded..). On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:47:21AM +0200, Marta Rybczynska wrote: > It is not possible to get 64-bit results from the passthru commands, > what prevents from getting for the Capabilities (CAP) property value. > > As a result, it is not possible to implement IOL's NVMe Conformance > test 4.3 Case 1 for Fabrics targets [1] (page 123). Not that I'm not sure passing through fabrics commands is an all that good idea. But we have pending NVMe TPs that use 64-bit result values as well, so this seems like a good idea in general.