[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250526053555.GG11639@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 07:35:55 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, mptcp@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 6/7] socket: Replace most sock_create()
calls with sock_create_kern().
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:21:12AM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> Except for only one user, sctp_do_peeloff(), all sockets created
> by drivers and fs are not tied to userspace processes nor exposed
> via file descriptors.
>
> Let's use sock_create_kern() for such in-kernel use cases as CIFS
> client and NFS.
So if sock_create is now almost unused and the special case, should
it also be renamed to make that explicit and make people not accidentally
use it by default?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists