[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220607103028.15f70be6@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 10:30:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>
Cc: dsahern@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
stephen@...workplumber.org, tariqt@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] ss: Shorter display format for TLS
zerocopy sendfile
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 13:35:19 +0300 Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> > That'd be an acceptable compromise. Hopefully sufficiently forewarned
> > users will mentally remove the zc_ part and still have a meaningful
> > amount of info about what the flag does.
> >
> > Any reason why we wouldn't reuse the same knob for zc sendmsg()? If we
> > plan to reuse it we can s/sendfile/send/ to shorten the name, perhaps.
>
> We can even make it as short as zc_ro_tx in that case.
SG
> Regarding sendmsg, I can't anticipate what knob will be used. There is
> MSG_ZEROCOPY which is also a candidate.
Right, that's what I'm wondering. MSG_ZEROCOPY already has some
restrictions on user not touching the data but technically a pure
TCP connection will not be broken if the data is modified. I'd lean
towards requiring the user setting zc_ro_tx, but admittedly I don't
have a very strong reason.
> Note that the constant in the header file has "SENDFILE" in its name, so
> if you want to reuse it for the future sendmsg zerocopy, we should think
> about renaming it in advance, before anyone starts using it.
> Alternatively, an alias for this constant can be added in the future.
Would be good to rename it to whatever we settle for on the iproute2
side. Are we going with zc_ro_tx, then?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists