[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iLrKwA7zQW4zMMDtAQy16vJGhX+wzfpFeQgTdyzVWhc8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 21:16:41 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Abhishek Chauhan <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...udflare.com, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/6] net: add kfree_skb_for_sk function
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:05 PM Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> I don't quite follow it. I think this specific commit using skb->cb is
> unnecessary so I am going to re-work it. As you initially mentioned,
> maybe I should just extend kfree_skb tracepoint. I saw a similar
> change dd1b527831a3("net: add location to trace_consume_skb()"), is it
> something I might follow, or do you specifically mean changes like
> this can annoy stable teams?
>
I do not think trace points arguments are put in stone.
If they were, I would nack the addition of new tracepoints, to prevent
ossification.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists