From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1.fiberby.net (mail1.fiberby.net [193.104.135.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C61FB219A8A; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 18:31:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.104.135.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771266680; cv=none; b=DQllwxufVgxyfEeKpuIdaSKc0TLNW7n2FK2Oset7+OEKyqkw3Nud4iW6H0lDUAVi6pFpFb4KeiLwdm6Cj0+YeYBXpPklIMzC79iu+8ll+500tfLfQZXxiS2enA61C3aJnVOPfeZybXeYTg0wcKgzXrp7CXOjg49HzKXk1IV9Bek= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771266680; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HIDHPlRtPRbYyevCOzRYnErusSYLI1Rh6VoOeJqPMTQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=uTlsTUUDj+i32D5u6jZj5DnT/BdCYx/tssdvj/8azui6pLCHJKl8jQHa2hg3SYhewJneO7nBXTE+vPkZqww1bTJdhwp8r2g0aj9rN0TszMlvqYHEqAGoZB/DuHA60QrAsOzv7x9ekh7gL8p3g3lGIkG1qC40TdkrLTwp9XNCkcE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fiberby.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fiberby.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fiberby.net header.i=@fiberby.net header.b=PeLAiIIu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.104.135.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fiberby.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fiberby.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fiberby.net header.i=@fiberby.net header.b="PeLAiIIu" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fiberby.net; s=202008; t=1771266673; bh=HIDHPlRtPRbYyevCOzRYnErusSYLI1Rh6VoOeJqPMTQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=PeLAiIIuOFTxr0KZt/FfDPIF1709HQNw4hcnBYWZZp6wtjzIbEzV/vHdookkAsiZs U/9uZCVIEzV/ZtBDF9xWiuvpSNRhWqCVVVO6miawxYof7XiveWCsMbBCWSg808t/Se wvyoqOTHWRyGAPRI8raAwslicsge8C1+yhF69kWgymI4kT0hJIN+aZNyo/qfl9v7oa qy9Y0dp2NoS69Xr6EYsT1q27wrWfRK0mr8Ap8TgNAe/7U3EKkjPesR6ZT+B4Ahy/ue g2Qj6hMF6rYZVrOrtpIUL6PE0c4RtM4PTxNZUbBm442AOolaywXCuRj3KZa4OA3cK8 Dx29Hm4Gr2K6w== Received: from x201s (193-104-135-243.ip4.fiberby.net [193.104.135.243]) by mail1.fiberby.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1BE460104; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 18:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by x201s (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F6D2016A4; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 18:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4f0b080b-f5ea-48c3-a507-c350d3b9d2e0@fiberby.net> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 18:31:09 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring/cmd_net: split ioctl code out of io_uring_cmd_sock() To: Jens Axboe Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260216160354.73239-1-ast@fiberby.net> <5bdb3ec3-8b25-4021-9d99-f866c4fd588c@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Asbj=C3=B8rn_Sloth_T=C3=B8nnesen?= In-Reply-To: <5bdb3ec3-8b25-4021-9d99-f866c4fd588c@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2/16/26 5:46 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2/16/26 9:03 AM, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote: >> io_uring_cmd_sock() originally supported two ioctl-based cmd_op >> operations. Over time, additional operations were added with tail calls >> to their helpers. >> >> This approach resulted in the new operations sharing an ioctl check >> with the original operations. >> >> io_uring_cmd_sock() now supports 6 operations, so let's move the >> implementation of the original two into their own helper, reducing >> io_uring_cmd_sock() to a simple dispatcher. >> >> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen >> --- >> >> Jens, I'm used to net -> net-next taking a week, as it only happens >> through Linus' tree. > > Looks good to me - since this is just a cleanup, let's defer to 7.1. > I'll kick that off in a week or so, at which point I'll pick this one > up too. Thank you, and sorry for posting during the merge window, I always intended this for 7.1. I just took it as an invite that you merged into for-next right after committing my fix to io_uring-7.0, given what I wrote earlier in the RFC: "I plan to submit v1 once that patch propagates to for-next.". I wasn't expecting it to happen that quickly.