[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230524081933.44dc8bea@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 08:19:33 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>
Cc: Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>, Christian
Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Leon Romanovsky
<leon@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann
<arnd@...db.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima
<kuniyu@...zon.com>, Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD
On Wed, 24 May 2023 11:47:50 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > I will send SO_PEERPIDFD as an independent patch too, because it
> > doesn't require this change with CONFIG_UNIX
> > and we can avoid waiting until CONFIG_UNIX change will be merged.
> > I've a feeling that the discussion around making CONFIG_UNIX to be a
> > boolean won't be easy and fast ;-)
>
> Thank you, that sounds great to me, I can start using SO_PEERPIDFD
> independently of SCM_PIDFD, there's no hard dependency between the
> two.
How about you put the UNIX -> bool patch at the end of the series,
(making it a 4 patch series) and if there's a discussion about it
I'll just skip it and apply the first 3 patches?
In the (IMHO more likely) case that there isn't a discussion it saves
me from remembering to chase you to send that patch ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists