On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 08:49:22AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > 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.
Well, the address would fit into the data pointer. But yes, the lack of a command length concept in nvme makes this idea a mess and not really workable.
