Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Oct 2012 06:58:06 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH] Extensible AIO interface |
| |
Hello, Kent.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:00:20PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > However, I don't think it's a good idea to try to implement something > > which is a neutral transport of opaque data between userland and lower > > layers. Things like that sound attractive with unlimited > > possibilities but reality seems to have the tendancy to make a big > > mess out of setups like that. > > I don't see how the "neutral transport of opaque data" itself is a bad > thing. We want something simple and sane to build actual interfaces on > top of - once we've got that, we can either build clean generic well > defined interfaces or we can make a mess like with ioctls :P > > It's like any other mechanism. There's good syscalls and bad syscalls...
Depending on what a feature aims for, the design and implementation vary greatly. If you go for completely generic extensible stuff which can be used to warp space-time continuum, it's easy to end up with a monstrosity with generic and programmable parser, verifier, accessor and so on.
> Say we implement an attr to control a block layer cache. That attr could > be parsed/validated in high level code (if there's any to do) - that I > don't object to. But the high level code isn't going to /know/ whether > there was any block cache in the stack that handled the attr. If the > attr is passed down to the block cache, that block cache can return that > it was handled.
My point is that if it doesn't fit the generic abstract model as in fadvise(2), it probably isn't worth supporting in any generic manner.
> > It's okay to allow some side channel thing for specific hacky uses but > > I really hope the general design were focused around properly > > abstracted attributes which can be understood and handled by the upper > > layer. > > Completely agreed. I want to leave that side channel open for > experimentation, and so we have a way of implementing one off hacky > stuff when we need to - but normal mainline stuff should be sane and > well designed.
So, I think we can aim for something simple and modest (the only thing I can think of at the moment is task association) and provide simple framework which can be used for specific custom usages. Let's please not go overboard with generic parser / verifier which supports pointer indirection or whatnot.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |