On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 20:07:11 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:

On 01/21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 19:25:27 -0800 Bobby Eshleman wrote:  

quoted

Good point. The only real use case for autorelease=on is for backwards
compatibility... so I thought maybe DEVMEM_A_DMABUF_COMPAT_TOKEN
or DEVMEM_A_DMABUF_COMPAT_DONTNEED would be clearer?  

Hm. Maybe let's return to naming once we have consensus on the uAPI.

Does everyone think that pushing this via TCP socket opts still makes
sense, even tho in practice the TCP socket is just how we find the
binding?  

I'm not a fan of the existing cmsg scheme, but we already have userspace
using it, so getting more performance out of it seems like an easy win?

I don't like:
 - the fact that we have to add the binding to a socket (extra field)
   - single socket can only serve single binding, there's no technical
     reason for this really, AFAICT, just the fact that we have a single
     pointer in the sock struct
 - the 7 levels of indentation in tcp_recvmsg_dmabuf()

I understand your argument, but as is this series feels closer to a PoC
than an easy win (the easy part should imply minor changes and no
detrimental effect on code quality IMHO).