On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 18:21, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yeah, I am not surprised we can change tcp_update_ulp() too, but > why should I bother kTLS when I do not have to? What you suggest > could at most save us a bit of code size, not a big gain. So, I'd keep > its return value as it is, unless you see any other benefits. I think the end result is code that is easier to understand and therefore maintain. Keep it as it is if you prefer. > BTW, I will rename it to 'psock_update_sk_prot', please let me know > if you have any better names. SGTM. -- Lorenz Bauer | Systems Engineer 6th Floor, County Hall/The Riverside Building, SE1 7PB, UK www.cloudflare.com
