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;
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:46:39 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Message-ID: <6425caff220cd_21f5692082f@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <838854.1680187186@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <64259aca22046_21883920890@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
 <20230329141354.516864-1-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <20230329141354.516864-17-dhowells@redhat.com>
 <838854.1680187186@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/48] ip, udp: Support MSG_SPLICE_PAGES
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

David Howells wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_output.c b/net/ipv4/ip_output.c
> > 
> > A non-RFC version would require the same for ipv6, of course.
> 
> I missed the fact that ipv6 had it's own version of __ip_append_data() despite
> sharing tcp_sendmsg().  Could __ip_append_data() and __ip6_append_data() be
> shared?  I guess that the v6_cork, the flowi6 and the ipcm6_cookie might
> prevent that.

We haven't been able to unify them before. As this series is
complex enough as is, I would not attempt to include it.

If it grows the code, maybe it'll be an incentive to take
another look afterwards.