[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 00/11] sockets: Attempt to drain the abstract socket swamp
From: |
Daniel P . Berrangé |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 00/11] sockets: Attempt to drain the abstract socket swamp |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:18:04 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) |
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:44:49AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:11:19AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi Markus,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In my opinion, the Linux-specific abstract UNIX domain socket feature
> >> >> introduced in 5.1 should have been rejected. The feature is niche,
> >> >> the interface clumsy, the implementation buggy and incomplete, and the
> >> >> test coverage insufficient. Review fail.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I also failed (as chardev maintainer..) to not only review but weigh in
> >> > and
> >> > discuss the merits or motivations behind it.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you. Also the commit lacks motivation behind this "feature".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Fixing the parts we can still fix now is regrettably expensive. If I
> >> >> had the power to decide, I'd unceremoniously revert the feature,
> >> >> compatibility to 5.1 be damned. But I don't, so here we go.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure this set of fixes is complete. However, I already spent
> >> >> too much time on this, so out it goes. Lightly tested.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regardless, I *will* make time for ripping the feature out if we
> >> >> decide to do that. Quick & easy way to avoid reviewing this series
> >> >> *hint* *hint*.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > well, fwiw, I would also take that approach too, to the risk of upsetting
> >> > the users.
> >>
> >> Reverting the feature requires rough consensus and a patch.
> >>
> >> I can provide a patch, but let's give everybody a chance to object
> >> first.
>
> Daniel, do you object, yes or no?
Yes, I object to removing the feature as it is clearly useful.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|