[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKgLBnC6wwDdUmM5XmgnODiL+sdHumg__jVC6FN_kKDEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:22:33 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, shaoyafang@...iglobal.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 5/5] net: sock: remove the definition of SOCK_DEBUG()
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:13 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:26 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:50 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > As SOCK_DEBUG() isn't used any more, we can get ride of it now.
> > >
> >
> > No, we are still using this infrastructure from time to time.
> >
> > I told you I agreed to remove the current (obsolete) TCP call sites,
> > I never suggested to remove SOCK_DEBUG() completely.
>
> Since when do we upstream care about any out-of-tree users?
>
> You can always carry a patch to keep it downstream if you want,
> no one can stop you doing it.
Somehow the patch series seems to present things in this way :
Eric Dumazet suggested to remove completely the SOCK_DEBUG() interface.
I did not.
I sometimes am lazy and use SOCK_DEBUG() myself, so I would like we keep it.
I know that others are doing the same thing, so I do not feel any shame.
Feel free to ignore my feedback.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists