From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751527AbdCaEKY (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:10:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58092 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750777AbdCaEKW (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:10:22 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 6B0024E4CD Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jasowang@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 6B0024E4CD Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 net-next 5/7] tun: support receiving skb through msg_control To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" References: <1490858550-7763-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1490858550-7763-6-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20170330180414-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <571168f4-981d-4f2a-4211-9b42c696ff52@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:10:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170330180414-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 04:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017年03月30日 23:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 03:22:28PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> This patch makes tun_recvmsg() can receive from skb from its caller >> through msg_control. Vhost_net will be the first user. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang > Do we need to bother with tun? I didn't realize one > can even use that with vhost. What would be the point of > all the virtio header stuff dealing with checksums etc? > > Even if you see a use-case is it worth optimizing? > > It's for tap in fact. I use "tun" just because we have already had a tap.c which is used by macvtap. Thanks