From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tadeusz Struk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/4] net: socket: add support for async operations Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:43:16 -0700 Message-ID: <550B0AB4.2060507@intel.com> References: <20150316161508.16418.23674.stgit@tstruk-mobl1> <20150316161514.16418.67336.stgit@tstruk-mobl1> <20150319162024.GO29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-aio@kvack.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ying.xue@windriver.com, bcrl@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:61022 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753481AbbCSRpx (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:45:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150319162024.GO29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/19/2015 09:20 AM, Al Viro wrote: > is completely pointless. Just have sock_read_iter() and sock_write_iter() > check if your new methods are present and use those if those are. > Ok, that will work for me too. > What's more, I'm not at all sure that you want to pass iocb that way - > kernel-side msghdr isn't tied to userland one anymore, so we might as well > stash a pointer to iocb into it. Voila - no new methods needed at all. Good point, so what do you prefer - to add iocd to msghdr or to call the new methods from sock_read_iter() and sock_write_iter()? Either way is good for me.