[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190624144013.3168dde2@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:40:13 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Vedang Patel <vedang.patel@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
vinicius.gomes@...el.com, l@...ileo.org, m-karicheri2@...com,
sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
aaron.f.brown@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/7] etf: Add skip_sock_check
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:28:23 -0700, Vedang Patel wrote:
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_sched.h b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_sched.h
> index 8b2f993cbb77..409d1616472d 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_sched.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_sched.h
> @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ struct tc_etf_qopt {
> __u32 flags;
> #define TC_ETF_DEADLINE_MODE_ON BIT(0)
> #define TC_ETF_OFFLOAD_ON BIT(1)
> +#define TC_ETF_SKIP_SOCK_CHECK BIT(2)
> };
>
> enum {
I think build bot complained about the code not building on 32bit.
When you respin could you include a patch to remove the uses of BIT()
in UAPI? See: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg579344.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists