[LTP] [PATCH] io_uring: enable I/O Uring before testing

[Li Wang]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 9:46 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:

> Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Thanks for comments.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:17 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Given that the upstream kernel is going to introduce io_uring_disabled
> >> > knob which disables the creation of new io_uring instances
> system-wide.
> >> >
> >> > The new sysctl is designed to let a user with root on the machine
> >> > enable and disable io_uring system-wide at runtime without requiring
> >> > a kernel recompilation or a reboot.
> >> >
> >> > See:
> >>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/io-uring/patch/20230630151003.3622786-2-matteorizzo@google.com/
> >> >
> >> > Without this patch, LTP/io_uring test complains:
> >> >
> >> >   io_uring01.c:82: TFAIL: io_uring_setup() failed: EPERM (1)
> >> >   io_uring02.c:213: TBROK: io_uring_setup() failed: EPERM (1)
> >>
> >> Just to be clear, with the above kernel patch applied io_uring is
> >> enabled by default.  You shouldn't need to set the sysctl parameter
> >> unless io_uring is explicitly disabled by the administrator (that can be
> >> accomplished via the kernel command line, sysfs, or via sysctl.conf).
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but it won't be harmful to set the parameter even if it's enabled by
> > default,
> > LTP uses save_restore field to manage sysfs knob unified, it guarantees
> the
> > tests can really get performed whatever io_uring is enabled or disabled.
> >
> > I would keep the patch as it is unless you insist or others have an
> > objection.
>
> I agree with the patch.  I just think the description should be updated,
> as it implies that, without the patch, the test will fail.  This is not
> the case for an upstream kernel.
>

Ah, sorry for the unclear description, I actually was not mean that.
anyway, I rewrote it and pushed.

Thanks for your reveiw, Jeff.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang