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;
From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>
To:     Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@dectris.com>
Cc:     Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= =?utf-8?B?IFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] xsk: Support UMEM chunk_size > PAGE_SIZE
In-Reply-To: <CAHApi-=BcdTD7KvE0OEzYya0RmDLDBS19NgtZsESADYXbySLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230406130205.49996-1-kal.conley@dectris.com>
 <20230406130205.49996-2-kal.conley@dectris.com> <87sfdckgaa.fsf@toke.dk>
 <ZDBEng1KEEG5lOA6@boxer>
 <CAHApi-nuD7iSY7fGPeMYiNf8YX3dG27tJx1=n8b_i=ZQdZGZbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <875ya12phx.fsf@toke.dk>
 <CAHApi-=rMHt7uR8Sw1Vw+MHDrtkyt=jSvTvwz8XKV7SEb01CmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87ile011kz.fsf@toke.dk>
 <CAHApi-m4gu8SX_1rBtUwrw+1-Q3ERFEX-HPMcwcCK1OceirwuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7nrzeww.fsf@toke.dk>
 <CAHApi-=BcdTD7KvE0OEzYya0RmDLDBS19NgtZsESADYXbySLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:28:59 +0200
Message-ID: <87edonzaac.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@dectris.com> writes:

>> "More annoying" is not a great argument, though. You're basically saying
>> "please complicate your code so I don't have to complicate mine". And
>> since kernel API is essentially frozen forever, adding more of them
>> carries a pretty high cost, which is why kernel developers tend not to
>> be easily swayed by convenience arguments (if all you want is a more
>> convenient API, just build one on top of the kernel primitives and wrap
>> it into a library).
>
> I was trying to make a fair comparison from the user's perspective
> between having to allocate huge pages and deal with discontiguous
> buffers. That was all.
>
> I think the "your code" distinction is a bit harsh. The kernel is a
> community project. Why isn't it "our" code? I am trying to add a
> feature that I think is generally useful to people. The kernel only
> exists to serve its users.

Oh, I'm sorry if that came across as harsh, that was not my intention! I
was certainly not trying to make a "you vs us" distinction; I was just
trying to explain why making changes on the kernel side carries a higher
cost than an equivalent (or even slightly more complex) change on the
userspace side, because of the UAPI consideration.

> I believe I am doing more good than harm sending these patches.

I don't think so! You've certainly sparked a discussion, that is good :)

-Toke