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:   Fri, 26 May 2023 14:23:18 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@sberdevices.ru>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@sberdevices.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] vsock: MSG_ZEROCOPY flag support
Message-ID: <sdm43ibxqzdylwxaai4mjj2ucqpduc74ucyg3yrn75dxu2kix5@jynppv7kxyjz>
References: <20230522073950.3574171-1-AVKrasnov@sberdevices.ru>
 <76270fab-8af7-7597-9193-64cb553a543e@sberdevices.ru>
 <y5tgyj5awrd4hvlrsxsvrern6pd2sby2mdtskah2qp5hemmo2a@72nhcpilg7v2>
 <4baf786b-afe5-371d-9bc4-90226e5df3af@sberdevices.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4baf786b-afe5-371d-9bc4-90226e5df3af@sberdevices.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 02:36:17PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 26.05.2023 13:30, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:56:42PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.05.2023 10:39, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>
>>> This patchset is unstable with SOCK_SEQPACKET. I'll fix it.
>>
>> Thanks for let us know!
>>
>> I'm thinking if we should start split this series in two, because it
>> becomes too big.
>>
>> But let keep this for RFC, we can decide later. An idea is to send
>> the first 7 patches with a preparation series, and the next ones with a
>> second series.
>
>Hello, ok! So i'll split patchset in the following way:
>1) Patches which adds new fields/flags and checks. But all of this is not used,
>   as it is preparation.
>2) Second part starts to use it and also carries tests.

As long as they're RFCs, maybe you can keep them together if they're
related, possibly specifying in the cover letter where you'd like to
split them. When we agree that we are in good shape, we can split it.

Thanks,
Stefano