[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150319181325.GQ29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:13:25 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, linux-aio@...ck.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ying.xue@...driver.com, bcrl@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/4] net: socket: add support for async
operations
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:43:16AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> 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.
I'd probably add msg_iocb to the end of struct msghdr and explicitly zero it in
copy_msghdr_from_user() and get_compat_msghdr(), but you are asking the wrong
guy - that sort of choices in net/* falls on davem, not me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists