[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180628190152.539bfc67@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:01:52 +0200
From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, davem@...emloft.net,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>, jiri@...nulli.us,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Pieter Jansen van Vuuren
<pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: check tunnel option type in tunnel
flags
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 09:54:52 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Hmm... in practice we could steal top bits of the size parameter for
> some flags, since it seems to be limited to values < 256 today? Is it
> worth it?
>
> It would look something along the lines of:
Something like that, yes. I'll leave to Daniel to review how much sense
it makes from the BPF side.
Thanks!
Jiri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists