qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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 :|




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]