On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:40:27AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > I am not sure why you chose sockptr_t for something that really seems generic. > > Or is it really meant to be exclusive to setsockopt() and/or getsockopt() ? > > If the first user of this had been futex code, we would have used > futexptr_t, I guess. It was originally intended to be generic and called uptr_t, based on me misunderstanding that Linus wanted a file operation for it, which he absolutely didn't and hate with passion. So the plan is to only use it for setsockopt for now, although there are some arguments for also using it in sendmsg/recvmsg. There is no need to use it for getsockopt.
