Re: [PATCH net-next v11 05/13] vsock: add netns support to virtio transports
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Date: 2025-11-24 13:02:41
Also in:
kvm, linux-hyperv, linux-kselftest, lkml, virtualization
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 11:03:51AM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 03:39:25PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 09:44:37PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:quoted
From: Bobby Eshleman <redacted> Add netns support to loopback and vhost. Keep netns disabled for virtio-vsock, but add necessary changes to comply with common API updates. This is the patch in the series when vhost-vsock namespaces actually come online. Hence, vhost_transport_supports_local_mode() is switched to return true. Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <redacted> --- Changes in v11: - reorder with the skb ownership patch for loopback (Stefano) - toggle vhost_transport_supports_local_mode() to true Changes in v10: - Splitting patches complicates the series with meaningless placeholder values that eventually get replaced anyway, so to avoid that this patch combines into one. Links to previous patches here: - Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251111-vsock-vmtest-v9-3-852787a37bed@meta.com/ (local) - Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251111-vsock-vmtest-v9-6-852787a37bed@meta.com/ (local) - Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251111-vsock-vmtest-v9-7-852787a37bed@meta.com/ (local) - remove placeholder values (Stefano) - update comment describe net/net_mode for virtio_transport_reset_no_sock() --- drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++------ include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 8 +++-- net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 10 ++++-- net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c | 8 +++-- 5 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>If we move the supports_local_mode() changes into this patch (for virtio and loopback, as I bring up in other discussion), should I drop this trailer or carry it forward?
I'll take a second look in any case, so maybe better to remove it if the patch will change. Thanks for asking! Stefano