[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6o_8OD33jFoggIZ@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:05:36 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@...look.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>,
changwoo@...lia.com, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 6/8] sched_ext: Add filter for
scx_kfunc_ids_unlocked
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 07:37:51PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> Can they all be rolled into one id_set then
> the patches 2-6 will be collapsed into one patch and
> one filter callback that will describe allowed hook/kfunc combinations?
I thought the BPF side filtering may be declarative on the kfunc sets and
tried to group the sets by where they can be called from. As we're going
prodcedural, there's no point in separating out the sets and we can use
merged kfunc sets and do all the distinctions in the filter function.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists