Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] udp: Add support for getsockopt(..., ..., UDP_GRO, ..., ...) | From | Norman Maurer <> | Date | Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:22:16 +0100 |
| |
Hi,
> On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: >> From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> >> >> Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for >> getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to >> retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch >> case for UDP_GRO >> >> Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.") >> Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> > > The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add > a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;)
Noted for the next time…
> > Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the > patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'. >
Ok noted
> One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post > a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork).
I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me some pointers I am happy to do so.
> > Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds > getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added > the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my > opinion.
I see… For me it seemed more like a bug as I can’t think of a reason why only setsockopt should be supported for an option but not getsockopt. But it may be just my opinion :)
> > Cheers, > > Paolo >
Thanks Norman
| |