# Re: \[RFC PATCH v9 06/19\] af\_vsock: rest of SEQPACKET support

- From: Stefano Garzarella \<sgarzare@redhat.com\>
- Date: 2021-05-13 11:42:35 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/05/1376662
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/kvm/2021/05/6361587/t.md

```text
On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:33:46PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>This does rest of SOCK_SEQPACKET support:
>1) Adds socket ops for SEQPACKET type.
>2) Allows to create socket with SEQPACKET type.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <redacted>
>Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>

This patch is changed, so usually you should remove the R-b tags.

>---
> include/net/af_vsock.h   |  1 +
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/net/af_vsock.h b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>index 5860027d5173..1747c0b564ef 100644
>--- a/include/net/af_vsock.h
>+++ b/include/net/af_vsock.h
>@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ struct vsock_transport {
> 				     int flags, bool *msg_ready);
> 	int (*seqpacket_enqueue)(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct msghdr *msg,
> 				 size_t len);
>+	bool (*seqpacket_allow)(u32 remote_cid);

I'm thinking if it's better to follow .dgram_allow() and .stream_allow(),
specifying also the `port` param, but since it's not used, we can add
later if needed.

So, I think this is fine:

Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>

```