On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 4/24/25 10:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 at 09:53, Michal Luczaj <m...@rbox.co> wrote:
On 4/24/25 09:28, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
[...]
You're right, it was me who was confused. VMCI and Hyper-V have their own
vsock_transport::release callbacks that do not call
virtio_transport_wait_close().
So VMCI and Hyper-V never lingered anyway?
I think so.
Indeed I was happy with v1, since I think this should be supported by
the vsock core and should not depend on the transport.
But we can do also later.
OK, for now let me fix this nonsense in comment and commit message.
Thanks!
But I'll wait for your opinion on [1] (drop, squash, change order of
patches?) before posting v3.
I'm fine with a second patch to fix the indentation and the order looks
fine.
BTW I'm thinking if it makes sense to go back on moving the lingering in
the core. I mean, if `unsent_bytes` is implemented, support linger, if
not, don't support it, like now.
That said, this should be implemented in another patch (or eventually
another series if you prefer), so my idea is the following split:
- use unsent_bytes() just in virtio
- move linger support in af_vsock.c (depending on transports
implementing unsent_bytes())
- implement unsent_bytes() in other transports (in the future)
WDYT?
Thanks,
Stefano
