From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 4ADD910A1E; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VL6H9Jke" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 651FEC433C7; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:55:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1696870519; bh=uCPuZaKEt3NJzh5PJgyPXMrlMFoyhf8vOk6Yz5Gt7cI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VL6H9Jke1U64QcENUxuMFocLMSPSbvq3zFxANnsxuh7IWW7VqmLz7vlxYct5KqmbP dwl94bXON6MWq/0t7sykpIyMr8Qj5yecUn0pn/u6l7nTYDh57oiYiYl6DUgI9mUhlr 8cLb9VDcasJ5VnmCh7DRMEQT0W+u3il6CAmEgIt9ZuP5MYqWdYndS4Q79LAO8Fk8tW l8L84gkOYM5BzZKIJOA8XEYudBTFNG1MOgab3a/xyntxqOqEqtLt+LDhOuzOyirFat V5PLNx98FcjTM0EV/TXJPWpngv8j/5YNcOcnpmHNezBS52k+8udOprlpejUOxssSsS 5kCzQQyC8zwyA== Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:55:18 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Breno Leitao Cc: Willem de Bruijn , sdf@google.com, axboe@kernel.dk, asml.silence@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev, krisman@suse.de, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt commands Message-ID: <20231009095518.288a5573@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20230904162504.1356068-1-leitao@debian.org> <20230905154951.0d0d3962@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 06:28:00 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > Correct. The current discussion is only related to optlen in the > getsockopt() callbacks (invoked when level != SOL_SOCKET). Everything > else (getsockopt(level=SOL_SOCKET..) and setsockopt) is using sockptr. > > Is it bad if we review/merge this code as is (using sockptr), and start > the iov_iter/getsockopt() refactor in a follow-up thread? Sorry for the delay, I only looked at the code now :S Agreed, that there's no need to worry about the sockptr spread in this series. It looks good to go in.