From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [RFC v2] net: Introduce recvmmsg socket syscall Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:36:10 -0400 Message-ID: <200906161636.10522.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20090611034022.GC22424@ghostprotocols.net> <200906111409.23246.paul.moore@hp.com> <20090611215341.GF22424@ghostprotocols.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Chris Van Hoof , Clark Williams , Caitlin Bestler , Steven Whitehouse , " =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont" , Neil Horman , Nivedita Singhvi To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Return-path: Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:4086 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752409AbZFPUgM (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:36:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090611215341.GF22424@ghostprotocols.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 11 June 2009 05:53:42 pm Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 02:09:22PM -0400, Paul Moore escreveu: > > On Wednesday 10 June 2009 11:40:22 pm Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > diff --git a/net/socket.c b/net/socket.c > > > index 791d71a..f9f1e20 100644 > > > --- a/net/socket.c > > > +++ b/net/socket.c > > > @@ -702,6 +702,28 @@ int sock_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct > > > msghdr *msg, return ret; > > > } > > > > > > +static int sock_recvmsg_nosec(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, > > > + size_t size, int flags) > > > +{ > > > + struct kiocb iocb; > > > + struct sock_iocb siocb; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + init_sync_kiocb(&iocb, NULL); > > > + iocb.private = &siocb; > > > + > > > + siocb.sock = sock; > > > + siocb.scm = NULL; > > > + siocb.msg = msg; > > > + siocb.size = size; > > > + siocb.flags = flags; > > > + > > > + ret = sock->ops->recvmsg(&iocb, sock, msg, size, flags); > > > + if (-EIOCBQUEUED == ret) > > > + ret = wait_on_sync_kiocb(&iocb); > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > > Hmmm, in an effort to reduce duplicated code how about updating > > __sock_recvmsg() to something like the following: > > > > static inline int __sock_recvmsg(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock, > > struct msghdr *msg, size_t size, int > > flags) { > > int err; > > > > err = security_socket_recvmsg(...); > > if (err) > > return err; > > > > return sock_recvmsg_nosec(...); > > } > > > > The only real difference is that now the *_kiocb() functions get called > > and I have no clue if that is good or bad but it is different :) > > Yeah, gets clearer, like this: > > static inline int __sock_recvmsg_nosec(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket > *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size, int flags) > { > struct sock_iocb *si = kiocb_to_siocb(iocb); > > si->sock = sock; > si->scm = NULL; > si->msg = msg; > si->size = size; > si->flags = flags; > > return sock->ops->recvmsg(iocb, sock, msg, size, flags); > } > > static inline int __sock_recvmsg(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock, > struct msghdr *msg, size_t size, int flags) > { > int err = security_socket_recvmsg(sock, msg, size, flags); > > return err ?: __sock_recvmsg_nosec(iocb, sock, msg, size, flags); > } > > static int sock_recvmsg_nosec(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, > size_t size, int flags) > { > struct kiocb iocb; > struct sock_iocb siocb; > int ret; > > init_sync_kiocb(&iocb, NULL); > iocb.private = &siocb; > ret = __sock_recvmsg_nosec(&iocb, sock, msg, size, flags); > if (-EIOCBQUEUED == ret) > ret = wait_on_sync_kiocb(&iocb); > return ret; > } > > Better now? :-) Sorry for the delay, I was away for a few days and just got back to email this morning ... but yes, much better now, thanks :) -- paul moore linux @ hp