From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD862931C7; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785594022; cv=none; b=bI3mI5XADQbeMQ1lceWq5kLL59RzOoLTuJVQEapNh/QfpvDkRUCR6SYaEYhRXatZi21w5Ok1FoYvbgHch/TDhCXce2bpEua6CFyVwngM1w72QsgEOXdPM1wYKTNzGWIxVafSC8LOx3HQCdYOYRVKL0TJypqFsLBleuBKMKeZa5k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785594022; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xpnj6wC8h5/QCW0aYUwJ2pZK0GXW7CDAJjVc7QI1evU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=VGPwbcDKu0vy9Q/zndofNLbnPVF5z5YXvIHkfu1sZn+ZswSI2PaSumGHB0lgkRLXsmLKu/FoHxvhpANCbKXBWW77k5ckOfG0A7pCCwWYMZSKDFcNp+bO5YK+zh0mMO1TAhXnsVeJn1lC0pycLGXzJx77R8LBUlE7hT1DZO0mxME= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=BiLvGpGd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BiLvGpGd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBE541F00AC4; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:20:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785594021; bh=ZGzqtJTAQVj3UiL8UDAlVrMJtLh1W963GASY87LM1hc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=BiLvGpGdYhr/BxVA2RZ2KcLwtpjt5UF0O7vBVjaHOEfJhqSNvUfSW9bxN8Lzd+YG8 rIqcGIm9X6PV0fNRYDHPgVGgS0+LQN/IeR4nY+ko+EuwarTBLNtVDeYvj5HSnvmYQa aik1sKsNlLZ0w3cq/+01qVIro2654/sJti+QO5qvWAv2v06HKXPR1ZMvb4UlxKgh3u hxO8yMy9zGtbr5rFQlrw7IbHLwRvnwMrvJ/Jpt0+O9HP2UBN8rx4y7epLWnLGs3lpA NJxtQ55oSz2gJbPaIpNAMtD+nBgxP14hGMhIqk2BdMyit/ArmU2mVgzzCFrQr86Vcg uV0rL9lSYGqhw== From: Sasha Levin To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sasha Levin , Harshit Mogalapalli , patches@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton , NeilBrown , Chuck Lever , vegard.nossum@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12 513/602] sunrpc: allocate a separate bvec array for socket sends Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 10:20:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20260801101505-810831fa989d@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 In-Reply-To: <6006a83d-d1a5-46c3-a501-9d31b27204bb@oracle.com> References: <20260730141435.976815864@linuxfoundation.org> <20260730141446.781523139@linuxfoundation.org> <6006a83d-d1a5-46c3-a501-9d31b27204bb@oracle.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, Aug 01, 2026 at 09:57:48AM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote: >The 6.12.y backport instead allocates sk_bvec unconditionally in >svc_setup_socket() with kcalloc(RPCSVC_MAXPAGES + 1, ...), including >for permanent TCP listener sockets. > >I do not see a correctness issue here. So I think this looks like an >acceptable 6.12.y adaptation, even though it does not preserve the exact >upstream allocation policy. I think I agree with you, and the divergence is intentional. 6.12 and 6.6 have neither svc_sock_sendpages() nor svc_serv_maxpages(). >I don't think there is anything to fix, but would like to double check, >thoughts ? Nothing to fix, the patch stays. It's also a hard prerequisite for 18c1cc698861 ("SUNRPC: Return an error from xdr_buf_to_bvec() on overflow"), which is queued immediately after it in all three series and patches the exact svsk->sk_bvec call sites this one introduces. Thanks for the careful review. -- Thanks, Sasha