From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB74C35679 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5F520836 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YqrqJt4l" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F5F520836 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E81E16B0036; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E325E6B0037; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:37:12 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D47E96B006C; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:37:12 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2836B0036 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6393348D for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:37:12 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76523609904.03.screw57_3ee956c1bb860 X-HE-Tag: screw57_3ee956c1bb860 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2947 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf40.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9ED720658; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:37:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1582515431; bh=bMWinYyvGT80w5oedT9Rbs/engnkzF2JnlWfsVIxAuo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YqrqJt4l8GfWNjwMJZacU2i237vH9VE9qQ2bX5hH/AQWu11v2lPCUnwB8Khb+3d2Q FcCypZYTJfmPT7CG+IvMIdZAQe9AMoT9QRHtp13A8I1tLQGghZvfOBBSS6sd5okbtu HpcwrrJDyVsKyo5KzhcqfNkDcETpa12TqalyEt7o= Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 19:37:10 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Arjun Roy Cc: Arjun Roy , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Eric Dumazet , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh Subject: Re: [PATCH resend mm,net-next 3/3] net-zerocopy: Use vm_insert_pages() for tcp rcv zerocopy. Message-Id: <20200223193710.596fb5d9ebb23959a3fee187@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20200128025958.43490-1-arjunroy.kdev@gmail.com> <20200128025958.43490-3-arjunroy.kdev@gmail.com> <20200212185605.d89c820903b7aa9fbbc060b2@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:21:41 -0800 Arjun Roy wrote: > I remain a bit concerned regarding the merge process for this specific > patch (0003, the net/ipv4/tcp.c change) since I have other in-flight > changes for TCP receive zerocopy that I'd like to upstream for > net-next - and would like to avoid weird merge issues. > > So perhaps the following could work: > > 1. Andrew, perhaps we could remove this particular patch (0003, the > net/ipv4/tcp.c change) from mm-next; that way we merge > vm_insert_pages() but not the call-site within TCP, for now. > 2. net-next will eventually pick vm_insert_pages() up. > 3. I can modify the zerocopy code to use it at that point? > > Else I'm concerned a complicated merge situation may result. > > What do you all think? We could do that. For now, I'll stage the entire patch series after linux-next and shall wait and see whether things which appear in linux-next cause serious merge issues to occur. Sound OK?