[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161031174942.GF32374@pox.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:49:42 +0100
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, maheshb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/5] bpf: Refactor cgroups code in prep for
new type
On 10/31/16 at 06:16pm, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 06:05 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 10/31/16 11:00 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> >> Yeah, I'm confused too. I changed that name in my v7 from
> >> BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK to BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB on David's
> >> (Ahern) request. Why is it now renamed again?
> >
> > Thomas pushed back on adding another program type in favor of using
> > subtypes. So this makes the program type generic to CGROUP and patch
> > 2 in this v2 set added Mickaƫl's subtype patch with the socket
> > mangling done that way in patch 3.
> >
>
> Fine for me. I can change it around again.
I would like to hear from Daniel B and Alexei as well. We need to
decide whether to use subtypes consistently and treat prog types as
something more high level or whether to bluntly introduce a new prog
type for every distinct set of verifier limits. I will change lwt_bpf
as well accordingly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists