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:

...

quoted

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.