From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] kcm: do not attach sockets if sk_user_data is
 already used
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:08:13 -0800
Message-ID: <1516298893.3606.24.camel@gmail.com>
References: <CALx6S35gZbfY-SwLjrvdazMWAMpC+fVhO8+O7C0QzoVaTdtKjg@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180116.140052.88231511056432866.davem@davemloft.net>
         <CAEwTi7QAYdiYdtWv+btWpDRGYr1oQXkF6zJm2tDnO-tNA5wU2g@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180117.142538.1972806008716856078.davem@davemloft.net>
         <20180118151853.GL1422@alphalink.fr>
         <CAEwTi7QwzrBfUT44EuZWcTviJPy25f29sSceVug7xGeTwQuHLw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CALx6S36ewno1msS3cLhtjQNBz0rEXsFadCQunbjPuOo6goC3tg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>,
        James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:41534 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1755362AbeARSIP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:08:15 -0500
Received: by mail-pg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 136so14365102pgd.8
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:08:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36ewno1msS3cLhtjQNBz0rEXsFadCQunbjPuOo6goC3tg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 09:46 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> 
> Then that's increasing the udp_sock structure size for a narrow use
> case which will get push back. I think it's going to be better to
> stick with one sock pointer. We could maybe redefine sk_user_data as a
> pointer to an allocated structure or array so it can hold multiple
> user_data pointers (in lieu of chaining).
> 

We do not have a lot of UDP sockets per host, I do not believe it
should be a problem adding stuff in them.