[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3ek3jnkp7iu6ypc6kq7iarx45bc4hkrmko4mtfqke6nvrjmsiu@mnvs66r2sejc>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:58:37 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru,
oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 07/17] vsock: read from socket's error queue
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 07:49:00AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 26.06.2023 19:08, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 11:49:29PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>> This adds handling of MSG_ERRQUEUE input flag in receive call. This flag
>>> is used to read socket's error queue instead of data queue. Possible
>>> scenario of error queue usage is receiving completions for transmission
>>> with MSG_ZEROCOPY flag.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/socket.h | 1 +
>>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 5 +++++
>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/socket.h b/include/linux/socket.h
>>> index bd1cc3238851..d79efd026880 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/socket.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/socket.h
>>> @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ struct ucred {
>>> #define SOL_MPTCP 284
>>> #define SOL_MCTP 285
>>> #define SOL_SMC 286
>>> +#define SOL_VSOCK 287
>>
>> Maybe this change should go in another patch where we describe that
>> we need to support setsockopt()
>
>Ok, You mean patch which handles SO_ZEROCOPY option in af_vsock.c as Bobby suggested? No
>problem, but in this case there will be no user for this define there - this option
>(SO_ZEROCOPY) uses SOL_SOCKET level, not SOL_VSOCK.
Got it, so it is fine to leave it here.
Just mention that we are defining SOL_VSOCK in the commit description.
Thanks,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists