| Message ID | 20210325195614.800687-1-norman_maurer@apple.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | udp: Add support for getsockopt(..., ..., UDP_GRO, ..., ...); | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | fail | 1 blamed authors not CCed: pabeni@redhat.com; 3 maintainers not CCed: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org pabeni@redhat.com kuba@kernel.org |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 7 this patch: 7 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 10 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 7 this patch: 7 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
Hello, On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: > From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> > > Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for > getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to > retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch > case for UDP_GRO > > Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.") > Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;) Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'. One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork). Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my opinion. Cheers, Paolo
Hi, > On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: >> From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> >> >> Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for >> getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to >> retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch >> case for UDP_GRO >> >> Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.") >> Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> > > The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add > a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;) Noted for the next time… > > Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the > patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'. > Ok noted > One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post > a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork). I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me some pointers I am happy to do so. > > Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds > getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added > the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my > opinion. I see… For me it seemed more like a bug as I can’t think of a reason why only setsockopt should be supported for an option but not getsockopt. But it may be just my opinion :) > > Cheers, > > Paolo > Thanks Norman
Hi, > On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: >> From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> >> >> Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for >> getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to >> retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch >> case for UDP_GRO >> >> Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.") >> Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> > > The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add > a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;) Noted for the next time… > > Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the > patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'. > Ok noted > One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post > a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork). I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me some pointers I am happy to do so. > > Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds > getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added > the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my > opinion. I see… For me it seemed more like a bug as I can’t think of a reason why only setsockopt should be supported for an option but not getsockopt. But it may be just my opinion :) > > Cheers, > > Paolo > Thanks Norman
Hi, > On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: >> From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> >> >> Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for >> getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to >> retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch >> case for UDP_GRO >> >> Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.") >> Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> > > The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add > a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;) Noted for the next time… > > Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the > patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'. > Ok noted > One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post > a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork). I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me some pointers I am happy to do so. > > Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds > getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added > the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my > opinion. I see… For me it seemed more like a bug as I can’t think of a reason why only setsockopt should be supported for an option but not getsockopt. But it may be just my opinion :) > > Cheers, > > Paolo > Thanks Norman
On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 11:22 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: > On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: > > One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post > > a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork). > > I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure > how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me > some pointers I am happy to do so. Well, I actually gave you a bad advice about fiddling with patchwork. The autoritative documentation: Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst (inside the kernel tree) suggests to avoid it. Just posting a v2 will suffice. Thanks! Paolo
Friendly ping… As this missing change was most likely an oversight in the original commit I do think it should go into 5.12 and subsequently stable as well. That’s also the reason why I didn’t send a v2 and changed the commit message / subject for the patch. For me it clearly is a bug and not a new feature. Thanks Norman > On 26. Mar 2021, at 13:22, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 11:22 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: >> On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: >>> One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post >>> a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork). >> >> I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure >> how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me >> some pointers I am happy to do so. > > Well, I actually gave you a bad advice about fiddling with patchwork. > > The autoritative documentation: > > Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst > > (inside the kernel tree) suggests to avoid it. > > Just posting a v2 will suffice. > > Thanks! > > Paolo >
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:10 +0200, Norman Maurer wrote: > As this missing change was most likely an oversight in the original > commit I do think it should go into 5.12 and subsequently stable as > well. That’s also the reason why I didn’t send a v2 and changed the > commit message / subject for the patch. For me it clearly is a bug > and not a new feature. I have no strong opinion against that (sorry, I hoped that was clear in my reply). Please go ahead. Thanks, Paolo
On 3/31/21 7:10 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: > Friendly ping… > > As this missing change was most likely an oversight in the original commit I do think it should go into 5.12 and subsequently stable as well. That’s also the reason why I didn’t send a v2 and changed the commit message / subject for the patch. For me it clearly is a bug and not a new feature. > > I agree that it should be added to net If you do not see it here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/ you need to re-send and clearly mark it as [PATCH net]. Make sure it has a Fixes tag.
> On 1. Apr 2021, at 02:18, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/31/21 7:10 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: >> Friendly ping… >> >> As this missing change was most likely an oversight in the original commit I do think it should go into 5.12 and subsequently stable as well. That’s also the reason why I didn’t send a v2 and changed the commit message / subject for the patch. For me it clearly is a bug and not a new feature. >> >> > > I agree that it should be added to net > > If you do not see it here: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/ > > you need to re-send and clearly mark it as [PATCH net]. Make sure it has > a Fixes tag. > Done: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210401065917.78025-1-norman_maurer@apple.com/ Thanks a lot of the review and help. Bye Norman
diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c index 4a0478b17243..99d743eb9dc4 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c @@ -2754,6 +2754,10 @@ int udp_lib_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname, val = up->gso_size; break; + case UDP_GRO: + val = up->gro_enabled; + break; + /* The following two cannot be changed on UDP sockets, the return is * always 0 (which corresponds to the full checksum coverage of UDP). */ case UDPLITE_SEND_CSCOV: