Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:55:18 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>, sdf@google.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, asml.silence@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev,
        krisman@suse.de, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] io_uring: Initial support for {s,g}etsockopt
 commands
Message-ID: <20231009095518.288a5573@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZSP/4GVaQiFuDizz@gmail.com>
References: <20230904162504.1356068-1-leitao@debian.org>
        <20230905154951.0d0d3962@kernel.org>
        <ZSArfLaaGcfd8LH8@gmail.com>
        <CAF=yD-Lr3238obe-_omnPBvgdv2NLvdK5be-5F7YyV3H7BkhSg@mail.gmail.com>
        <ZSP/4GVaQiFuDizz@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 06:28:00 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote:
> Correct. The current discussion is only related to optlen in the
> getsockopt() callbacks (invoked when level != SOL_SOCKET). Everything
> else (getsockopt(level=SOL_SOCKET..) and setsockopt) is using sockptr.
> 
> Is it bad if we review/merge this code as is (using sockptr), and start
> the iov_iter/getsockopt() refactor in a follow-up thread?

Sorry for the delay, I only looked at the code now :S
Agreed, that there's no need to worry about the sockptr spread
in this series. It looks good to go in.