Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220216050320.3222-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+6Hc7q-a=zh_jcTn9_GM5xP6fzv2RcHY+tneqzE3UnHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL+tcoBnSDjHk_Xhd_ohQjpMu-Ns2Du4mWhUybrK6+VPXHoETQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANn89iJTrH1sgstrEw17OUwC8jLBS9_uk_oUd5Hj0-FypTvvPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJTrH1sgstrEw17OUwC8jLBS9_uk_oUd5Hj0-FypTvvPw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:15:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoCOX8A4gFDr5_QdLJ0PgwdBAbECtu4yh+RVTTJSp7yQyA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce SO_RCVBUFAUTO to let the
 rcv_buf tune automatically
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
        Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>,
        Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jason Xing <xingwanli@kuaishou.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:56 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:58 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just now, I found out that the latest kernel has merged a similar
> > patch (commit 04190bf89) about three months ago.
>
> There you go :)
>
> >
> > Is it still necessary to add another separate option to clear the
> > SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK explicitly?
>
> What do you mean, SO_BUF_LOCK is all that is needed.

Yeah, I think SO_BUF_LOCK is enough and we don't have to add a new
option like SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK as we've talked about before. Thanks,
Eric.