[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190129123405.787746f7@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:34:05 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/7] samples/bpf: Add a "force" flag to XDP
samples
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:00:00 +0100
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:16:11 +0100
> Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
> >
> > Make xdp samples consistent with iproute2 behavior and set the
> > XDP_FLAGS_UPDATE_IF_NOEXIST by default when setting the xdp program on
> > interface. Provide an option for user to force the program loading,
> > which as a result will not include the mentioned flag in
> > bpf_set_link_xdp_fd call.
>
> I like the idea, but what is the error message users get after this
> change?
$ sudo ./xdp1 mlx5p1 &
[1] 9768
$ sudo ./xdp1 mlx5p1
link set xdp fd failed
This error message is a little too generic to be a good user experience.
The kernel (in dev_change_xdp_fd) will return errno -EBUSY (-16), but
we don't use or report the return value in these sample programs.
If my QA see this error message, I will still get an error report
bugzilla that I need to spend time on investigating. Can we please
improve this error message?
If you are really cool you get inspired by (or use) libbpf_strerror()
code avail in tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_errno.c. Default strerror(EBUSY)
will return "Device or resource busy", but maybe we can do slightly
better and report something more meaningful for this XDP context.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists