Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Markus, > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:43 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@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. > But maybe we can get a clear reason behind it before that > happens. (sorry, I didn't dig the ML archive is such evidence is there, it > should have been in the commit message too) I just did, and found next to nothing. This is the final cover letter: qemu-sockets: add abstract UNIX domain socket support qemu does not support abstract UNIX domain socket address. Add this ability to make qemu handy when abstract address is needed. Boils down to "$feature is needed because it's handy when it's needed", which is less than helpful. Patch history: v1: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-04/msg03799.html This version repurposes @path starting with '@' for abstract sockets, always tight. Only connect, no tests, no documentation. R-by Marc-André. v2: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-04/msg03803.html Minor cleanup. Daniel asks why it's needed, points out listen is missing, and suggests the two boolean flags abstract, tight. v3: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg02291.html Implement interface proposed by Daniel, default of @tight broken, tests (which don't catch the broken default), documentation. Eric suggests QAPI schema doc improvements (but doesn't challenge the interface). R-by Daniel for the code. He asks for randomized @path in tests. v4: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg04036.html Daniel points out style nits in tests. Eric suggests a few more QAPI schema doc improvements. v5: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg04144.html R-by Daniel for the tests. v6: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg04508.html No further review comments. PR: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg05747.html Pull request catches my eye. The interface looks odd, and I challenge @tight. I silently accept Daniel's defense of it without digging deeper. This is a review failure. I do not blame the patch submitter.