[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <408c3990-727e-c911-b62a-2f4cc0bd2452@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:34:55 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>, Blake Matheny <bmatheny@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/11] bpf: Support passing args to sock_ops
bpf function
On 01/24/2018 02:30 AM, Lawrence Brakmo wrote:
> On 1/23/18, 5:11 PM, "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
[...]
> > +{
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline int tcp_call_bpf_4arg(struct sock *sk, int op, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
> > + u32 arg3, u32 arg4)
> > +{
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif
>
> tcp_call_bpf_1arg() and tcp_call_bpf_4arg() unused for the time being?
>
> Yes, I just thought I should add them for completeness. Should I remove them until
> they are actually used?
Yeah, I think that would be preferred way.
Thanks again,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists