Re: [RFC PATCH v2 48/48] sock: Remove ->sendpage*() in favour of sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES)

David Howells <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.dccp,dev.linux.lists.mptcp,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-can,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-hams,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-rdma,org.kernel.vger.linux-sctp,org.kernel.vger.linux-wpan,org.kernel.vger.linux-x25,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kvack.linux-mm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]> wrote:

> > [!] Note: This is a work in progress.  At the moment, some things won't
> >      build if this patch is applied.  nvme, kcm, smc, tls.

Actually, that needs updating.  nvme and smc now build.

> Weelll ... what happens to consumers of kernel_sendpage()?
> (Let's call them nvme ...)
> Should they be moved over, too?

Patch 42 should address NVMe, I think.  I can't test it, though, as I don't
have hardware.

There should be no callers of kernel_sendmsg() by the end of this patchset,
and the only remaining implementors of sendpage are Chelsio-TLS, AF_TLS and
AF_KCM, which as stated in the cover, aren't yet converted and won't build.

> Or what is the general consensus here?
> 
> (And what do we do with TLS? It does have a ->sendpage() version, too ...)

I know.  There are three things left that I need to tackle, but I'd like to
get opinions on some of the other bits and I might need some help with AF_TLS
and AF_KCM.

That said, should I just remove tls_sw_do_sendpage() since presumably the data
is going to get copied(?) and encrypted and the source pages aren't going to
be held onto?

David
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.