From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332E61F9FD for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230228AbhBZUvD (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:51:03 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:46536 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229849AbhBZUvC (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:51:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 19045 invoked by uid 109); 26 Feb 2021 20:50:22 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:50:22 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 25178 invoked by uid 111); 26 Feb 2021 20:50:21 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:50:21 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:50:21 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= , Johannes Schindelin , Jeff Hostetler Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Simple IPC Mechanism Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 03:18:26PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to looking at the latest version. I left > > another round of comments. Some of them are arguably bikeshedding, but > > there's at least one I think we'd want to address (the big stack buffer > > in patch 1). > > > > I also haven't carefully looked at the simple-ipc design at all; my > > focus has just been on the details of socket and pktline code being > > touched. Since there are no simple-ipc users yet, and since it's > > internal and would be easy to change later, I'm mostly content for Jeff > > to proceed as he sees fit and iterate on it as necessary. > > We can wait until next week on moving this 'next' if you want. > I'll attend to the buffer alloc in patch 1. I'm still reading the > other comments and will see where that takes me. I could have been a bit more clear here: modulo any response you have to my latest round of comments, I'm mostly happy to let this proceed to next. So I was thinking you'd have one more re-roll dealing with the patch 1 problems plus anything else you think worth addressing from my batch of comments, and then that result would probably be ready for 'next'. > I'm about ready to push an RFC for my fsmonitor--daemon series that > sits on top of this simple-ipc series, so you can see an actual use > case if that would help understand (my madness). I may have dug my own grave here. ;) I'm actually not incredibly interested in the overall topic. So I wasn't saying so much "I'll reserve judgement on simple-ipc until I see callers" so much as "I expect you'll find any shortcomings in its design yourself as you build on top of it". And by "not interested" I don't mean that I think the topic is without value. Far from it; I think this is an important area to be working in. But it's complex and time-consuming to review. So I was hoping somebody with more expertise and interest in the problem space would do that part of the review, and I could continue to focus on other stuff. That may be wishful thinking, though. :) -Peff