Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200814035453.210716-1-kalou@tfz.net> <20200814035453.210716-3-kalou@tfz.net>
 <20200814052801.GA10141@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200814052801.GA10141@infradead.org>
From:   Pascal Bouchareine <kalou@tfz.net>
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 22:48:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGbU3_kOhXEx2s19P==F2-CyHFGbX_qKVWhPi+kPe3tmsY=HfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] fcntl: introduce F_SET_DESCRIPTION
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:28 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > One intended usage is to allow processes to self-document sockets
> > for netstat and friends to report
>
> NAK.  There is no way we're going to bloat a criticial structure like
> struct file for some vanity information like this.

The useful case is for sockets - Is there a more suited place to do that?
Do you think adding a setsockopt and sk_description to struct sock
would work, or would be considered the same?