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;
Message-ID: <8c5e3b16-15ac-45fe-d9c2-14615eccb981@gnuweeb.org>
Date:   Sun, 30 Jan 2022 06:30:52 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.18 v1 0/3] Add `sendto(2)` and `recvfrom(2)` support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     io-uring Mailing List <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev Mailing List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@gnuweeb.org>,
        Tea Inside Mailing List <timl@vger.teainside.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Nugra <richiisei@gmail.com>,
        Praveen Kumar <kpraveen.lkml@gmail.com>,
        Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@gmail.com>
References: <20220129125021.15223-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <98d4f268-5945-69a7-cec7-bccfcdedde1c@kernel.dk>
From:   Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
In-Reply-To: <98d4f268-5945-69a7-cec7-bccfcdedde1c@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/30/22 1:32 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/29/22 5:50 AM, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patchset adds sendto(2) and recvfrom(2) support for io_uring. It
>> also addresses an issue in the liburing GitHub repository [1].
>>
>> ## Motivations:
>>
>> 1) By using `sendto()` and `recvfrom()` we can make the submission
>>     simpler compared to always using `sendmsg()` and `recvmsg()` from
>>     the userspace. Especially for UDP socket.
>>
>> 2) There is a historical patch that tried to add the same
>>     functionality, but did not end up being applied. [2]
> 
> As far as I can tell, the only win from sendto/recvfrom is that we can
> handle async offload a bit cheaper compared to sendmsg/recvmsg. Is this
> enough to warrant adding them separately? I don't know, which is why
> this has been somewhat stalled for a while.
> 
> Maybe you have done some testing and have numbers (or other reasons) to
> back up the submission? There's not a whole lot of justification in this
> patchset.
> 

So far, I haven't done it. I only created a test that ensures the
functionality is working properly.

I will play with this further. If I win, I will submit the v2 of
this series for review. Thanks, Jens!

-- 
Ammar Faizi