From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rxrpc: Don't permit use of connect() op and simplify sendmsg() op Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:26:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4962.1460690770@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <20160414.210713.1128991767536792390.davem@davemloft.net> <20160412150533.20637.23952.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160412150540.20637.31886.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57335 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752344AbcDOD0N convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:26:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160414.210713.1128991767536792390.davem@davemloft.net> Content-ID: <4961.1460690770.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > > Simplify the RxRPC user interface and remove the use of connect() to direct > > client calls. It is redundant given that sendmsg() can be given the target > > address and calls to multiple targets are permitted from a client socket > > and also from a service socket. > > You can't just change completely the socket semantics for your > protocol like this, every single userland application is going to > break. > > Sorry, there is no way I am applying changes like this. Okay, fair enough.[*] David [*] I could point out that there is only one (under construction) userspace application that uses this - and that doesn't use connect - but I can't quite be 100% sure of that, so your point stands.