From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C46A0613 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:17:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7A41E87B; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:17:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DDA1E86B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:17:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=883; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1567149429; x=1568359029; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XCC5RBs3iDjO/NClz6srTw1ec0VnjT3AasctFrt9IN8=; b=YFCdqvFhw4mPjkZSwq9Xk/OoXkD3SAfugNGVgyQKN6TL0+4Hr7HG8l7Q PaYZ2XzxvDqYk3KJXdwVB2kxv/5KOzhvWwqcoFreoaml0GoD3XrSv3bki LPlFHJq/dFTObCjwgXiXGuPUG2shn+DzsMAxQnWWtsjbrHxXvTTMuZkVk E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AFAADPzGhd/5RdJa1mGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBVAMBAQEBAQsBgheBcioKkx+CD5kZgXsJAQEBDAEBLwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BhD8CglsjNQgOAgMBAgIDAQEEAQEBAgEGBG2FOoVKAQEBAwE6SwQCAQgRBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BHxAyHQgCBAESCIUWD617ikqBNAGLdhiBf4QjPoonBJRglykJAh2CApROI5h?= =?us-ascii?q?fjXGYOQIRFYEwIgI0gVhwFYMnUBAUgVcajiJBMY4PgSMBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,446,1559520000"; d="scan'208";a="327513446" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Aug 2019 07:17:07 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7U7H7B7000384 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:17:07 GMT Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:17:07 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com ([173.36.7.14]) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com ([173.36.7.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:17:07 -0500 From: "Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" To: Stephen Hemminger , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [RFC v3] net/memif: allow for full key size in socket name Thread-Index: AQHVO/rZQRcex0Fk/0+hPuYr4aNjDacTi+6A Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:17:07 +0000 Message-ID: <55a3d547efc04ad48ea416aae76cf0e0@XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com> References: <20190708160600.25939-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20190716172057.21110-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> In-Reply-To: <20190716172057.21110-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.96.29] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v3] net/memif: allow for full key size in socket name X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 7:21 PM > To: dev@dpdk.org; Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at > Cisco) > Cc: Stephen Hemminger > Subject: [RFC v3] net/memif: allow for full key size in socket name >=20 > The key size for memif is 256 but the unix domain socket structure has > space for 100 bytes. Change it to use a larger buffer and not hard > code the keysize everywhere. >=20 > Not sure what purpose of socket is anyway since there is no code > which connects to it in the current tree anyway? See memif_connect_slave in memif_socket.c >=20 > Still an RFC, have no way to test. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger Tested-by: Jakub Grajciar