[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250530030308.3216933-1-kuni1840@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 20:03:06 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>
To: hch@....de
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk,
chuck.lever@...cle.com,
davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com,
horms@...nel.org,
jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
jlayton@...nel.org,
kbusch@...nel.org,
kuba@...nel.org,
kuni1840@...il.com,
kuniyu@...zon.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
matttbe@...nel.org,
mptcp@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
sfrench@...ba.org,
wenjia@...ux.ibm.com,
willemb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 6/7] socket: Replace most sock_create() calls with sock_create_kern().
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 07:35:55 +0200
> 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?
I actually tried to to do so as sock_create_user() in the
previous series but was advised to avoid rename as the benefit
against LoC was low.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists