Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] vsock: Linger on unsent data

[Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>]

On 4/28/25 15:56, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> On 4/24/25 10:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 at 09:53, Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co> wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/25 09:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> You're right, it was me who was confused. VMCI and Hyper-V have their own
>>>> vsock_transport::release callbacks that do not call
>>>> virtio_transport_wait_close().
>>>>
>>>> So VMCI and Hyper-V never lingered anyway?
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>>
>>> Indeed I was happy with v1, since I think this should be supported by
>>> the vsock core and should not depend on the transport.
>>> But we can do also later.
>>
>> OK, for now let me fix this nonsense in comment and commit message.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>
>> But I'll wait for your opinion on [1] (drop, squash, change order of
>> patches?) before posting v3.
> 
> I'm fine with a second patch to fix the indentation and the order looks 
> fine.
> 
> BTW I'm thinking if it makes sense to go back on moving the lingering in 
> the core. I mean, if `unsent_bytes` is implemented, support linger, if 
> not, don't support it, like now.
> 
> That said, this should be implemented in another patch (or eventually 
> another series if you prefer), so my idea is the following split:
> - use unsent_bytes() just in virtio
> - move linger support in af_vsock.c (depending on transports 
>    implementing unsent_bytes())
> - implement unsent_bytes() in other transports (in the future)
> 
> WDYT?

Sure, makes sense. Even though I'm not certain I understand "use
unsent_bytes() just in virtio" part. Anyway, we can carry the discussion to
v3:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250430-vsock-linger-v3-0-ddbe73b53457@rbox.co/

Note that I took the liberty to assume unsent_bytes() is always there for
loopback/virtio transports. Check for NULL is introduced when the code is
moved to core. By the end of the series it changes nothing, but I hope it's
a tiny bit more sensible.

Thanks,
Michal