On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote: > On 9/24/26 12:17, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote: > >> ... > >> I've addressed all your other comments for v2 and went through Ashiko's > >> reports (side effects of lockless peer_shutdown write, imperfect > >> no-transport TCP_LISTENER enforcement). I've decided to try the > >> eager-unassign approach. I think/hope this way we sidestep the lockless > >> writes and enforce the invariant without breaking the API, while fixing the > >> bugs. > >> > >> This should probably be RFC, but I'm posting as v3[1] so netdev's LLM can > >> have a go (too). Hope I'm not breaking any workflow. Let me know what you > >> think. > > > > I think you can add RFC also on a v3 patch, just to make it clear you > > are not sure it's ready to be merged. > > > > That said, thanks for that :-) I'll take a look today or next week > > because I'm off tomorrow. > > > > I'm just worried it's becoming too big for net. Anyway, I'll comment > > there. > > Yeah, I get it. Would you rather have a single net.git patch[1] for the > original report + keep all the rest for net-next, or do the whole series as > is, but slowly at net-next?
I'd go with the first option. Let's try to get the fix into net first, and then move the rest to net-next at a reasonable pace. WDYT? > > [1]: Basically > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/ > + your comments addressed + addressing one of Sashiko's comments, and > ignoring the transport-reset-surprise one > Yeah, that! Thanks, Stefano
