On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:19:29AM +0200, 'Christoph Hellwig' wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:36:23AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: ... > > What if you two work on a joint patchset for this? The proposals are > > quite close. The differences around the setsockopt handling are > > minimal already. It is basically variable naming, indentation and one > > or another small change like: > > I don't really want to waste too much time on this, as what I really > need is to get the kernel_setsockopt removal series in ASAP. I'm happy > to respin this once or twice with clear maintainer guidance (like the > memzero_explicit), but I have no idea what you even meant with your > other example or naming. Tell me what exact changes you want, and > I can do a quick spin, but I don't really want a huge open ended > discussion on how to paint the bikeshed.. What I meant is that the 2 proposals were very close already, with only minimal differences. As David had posted his set first and you didn't add a RFC tag nor stated that you were just sharing the patches, I understood it was an alternative approach to David's, which is not optimal here. This topic is far from being that polemic, that could benefit from having 2 competing approaches. So first I wanted a joint approach, and then build on it. For now lets see how David's new patchset will look like. It was almost there already. > > Alternatively I'll also happily only do a partial conversion for what > I need for the kernel_setsockopt removal and let you and Dave decided > what you guys prefer for the rest.
