I'm not sure if it's worth the efforts. However it looks a bit quirky that one needs to keep a struct __kernel_timespec alive until the submission is fully done.
I feel it would be nice to have a flag like IORING_TIMEOUT_PURE_NS, and encode its value in the addr field.
An alternative could be normalizing the timespec so that the tv_nsec is less than 999'999'999. We could take it to some i32 field in the sqe. I don't see any use of fields from the union with splice_fd_in for TIMEOUTs...
BTW, unlike timerfd_settime(), the uring implementation is currently not strict and doesn't reject if tv_nsec > 999'999'999. Could it be documented, or you need a freedom to make it stricter in the future?
I'm not sure if it's worth the efforts. However it looks a bit quirky that one needs to keep a
struct __kernel_timespecalive until the submission is fully done.I feel it would be nice to have a flag like
IORING_TIMEOUT_PURE_NS, and encode its value in theaddrfield.An alternative could be normalizing the timespec so that the
tv_nsecis less than 999'999'999. We could take it to some i32 field in thesqe. I don't see any use of fields from the union withsplice_fd_infor TIMEOUTs...BTW, unlike
timerfd_settime(), the uring implementation is currently not strict and doesn't reject iftv_nsec > 999'999'999. Could it be documented, or you need a freedom to make it stricter in the future?