[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6491a2a6f1488_3bcfec294d7@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 08:59:18 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
dccp@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hams@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, linux-x25@...r.kernel.org,
mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 17/17] net: Kill MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST
David Howells wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it intentional to add MSG_MORE here in this patch?
> >
> > I do see that patch 3 removes this branch:
>
> Yeah. I think I may have tcp_bpf a bit wrong with regard to handling
> MSG_MORE.
>
> How about the attached version of tcp_bpf_push()?
>
> I wonder if it's save to move the setting of MSG_SENDPAGE_NOPOLICY out of the
> loop as I've done here. The caller holds the socket lock.
>
> Also, I'm not sure whether to take account of apply/apply_bytes when setting
> MSG_MORE mid-message, or whether to just go on whether we've reached
> sge->length yet. (I'm not sure exactly how tcp_bpf works).
I'm not very familiar with it either.
Instead of inferring whether MSG_MORE is safe to set, as below, sufficient to
rely on the caller to pass it when appropriate?
size = min(apply_bytes, sge->length). I doubt that size < apply_bytes is
ever intended.
And instead of this former branch
if (flags & MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST)
msghdr.msg_flags |= MSG_MORE;
update any caller to pass MSG_MORE instead of MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST, if not yet
done so.
> msghdr.msg_flags = flags;
>
> /* Determine if we need to set MSG_MORE. */
> if (!(msghdr.msg_flags & MSG_MORE)) {
> if (apply && size < apply_bytes)
> msghdr.msg_flags |= MSG_MORE;
> else if (!apply && size < sge->length &&
> msg->sg.start != msg->sg.end)
> msghdr.msg_flags |= MSG_MORE;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists