From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnuweeb.org (unknown [103.31.38.59]) by teainside.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE44C7EC8E for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 23:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.88.87] (unknown [36.81.38.25]) by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE5C8C32D0; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 23:30:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=gnuweeb.org; s=default; t=1643499055; bh=B4K+3+JFTWWKU/O0tyev275Y374cFJ34SuhCQURx7oc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=JKJ5Ct61wVnrR2iphOOxgQYDqWKHYayo3MF1SEnxb+dYFC0P7aw2idbQ1+YoOhngb Wfkb89NKejxQCeTxH4CWHkbjtRsG7pIj5zktfZT0kPzn9bMyUvtgicacW1FFwLRK3p LYnE7fh5WJIpxBqXMoVo4LAArpgAxK/IEXPT00uFhLkIZFJG8zKXO016l1qH/RhrMH Hx2N0lsxNpHe3lpPcQgWY/+HUwJ6IkJ9jpIZX6sQ0V7ThEfaXCLVpQn3ekYrLlL3uq YxK4kUYb395e8tCKQC9goRn4GwgbKq3TK69ts9um/JEMhdJ77rZOzaY/KrO95ambO1 bsnQtR12AyXng== Message-ID: <8c5e3b16-15ac-45fe-d9c2-14615eccb981@gnuweeb.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 06:30:52 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.18 v1 0/3] Add `sendto(2)` and `recvfrom(2)` support Content-Language: en-US To: Jens Axboe Cc: io-uring Mailing List , netdev Mailing List , GNU/Weeb Mailing List , Tea Inside Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pavel Begunkov , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Nugra , Praveen Kumar , Alviro Iskandar Setiawan References: <20220129125021.15223-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org> <98d4f268-5945-69a7-cec7-bccfcdedde1c@kernel.dk> From: Ammar Faizi In-Reply-To: <98d4f268-5945-69a7-cec7-bccfcdedde1c@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: On 1/30/22 1:32 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/29/22 5:50 AM, Ammar Faizi wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This patchset adds sendto(2) and recvfrom(2) support for io_uring. It >> also addresses an issue in the liburing GitHub repository [1]. >> >> ## Motivations: >> >> 1) By using `sendto()` and `recvfrom()` we can make the submission >> simpler compared to always using `sendmsg()` and `recvmsg()` from >> the userspace. Especially for UDP socket. >> >> 2) There is a historical patch that tried to add the same >> functionality, but did not end up being applied. [2] > > As far as I can tell, the only win from sendto/recvfrom is that we can > handle async offload a bit cheaper compared to sendmsg/recvmsg. Is this > enough to warrant adding them separately? I don't know, which is why > this has been somewhat stalled for a while. > > Maybe you have done some testing and have numbers (or other reasons) to > back up the submission? There's not a whole lot of justification in this > patchset. > So far, I haven't done it. I only created a test that ensures the functionality is working properly. I will play with this further. If I win, I will submit the v2 of this series for review. Thanks, Jens! -- Ammar Faizi