Re: [PATCH] io_uring/cmd_net: split ioctl code out of io_uring_cmd_sock()

[Jens Axboe]

On 2/16/26 11:31 AM, Asbj?rn Sloth T?nnesen wrote:
> On 2/16/26 5:46 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/16/26 9:03 AM, Asbj?rn Sloth T?nnesen wrote:
>>> io_uring_cmd_sock() originally supported two ioctl-based cmd_op
>>> operations. Over time, additional operations were added with tail calls
>>> to their helpers.
>>>
>>> This approach resulted in the new operations sharing an ioctl check
>>> with the original operations.
>>>
>>> io_uring_cmd_sock() now supports 6 operations, so let's move the
>>> implementation of the original two into their own helper, reducing
>>> io_uring_cmd_sock() to a simple dispatcher.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Asbj?rn Sloth T?nnesen <ast@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Jens, I'm used to net -> net-next taking a week, as it only happens
>>> through Linus' tree.
>>
>> Looks good to me - since this is just a cleanup, let's defer to 7.1.
>> I'll kick that off in a week or so, at which point I'll pick this one
>> up too.
> 
> Thank you, and sorry for posting during the merge window, I always
> intended this for 7.1. I just took it as an invite that you merged into
> for-next right after committing my fix to io_uring-7.0, given what I
> wrote earlier in the RFC: "I plan to submit v1 once that patch
> propagates to for-next.". I wasn't expecting it to happen that quickly.

I do it a bit differently than netdev - my for-next is everything queued
for this release, and the next. You don't need to resend patch headed
for 7.1, unless I for some reason forget to merge it... But I tend to
try and tag these things so I don't forget them. It's a bit easier post
-rc1/2 time as the for-7.x/io_uring branch does exist already and it can
just go straight there.

-- 
Jens Axboe