On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:56:28AM -0700, Sagi Grimberg 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. > > Isn't simply having a 64 variant simpler?
Could you provide more details on what you mean by this?