On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:06:23AM -0700, Marta Rybczynska wrote: > ----- On 16 Aug, 2019, at 15:16, Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote: > > 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..). > > We could do that, nvme_command and nvme_completion are already UAPI. > On the other hand that would mean not filling out certain fields like > command_id. Can do an approach like this.
Well, we need to pass user space addresses and lengths, which isn't captured in struct nvme_command.
