[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b780dd4-227f-64c4-260d-9e819ba7081f@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:34:39 +0200
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@...sung.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: magnus.karlsson@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
syzbot+c82697e3043781e08802@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
hdanton@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] xsk: add proper barriers and {READ,
WRITE}_ONCE-correctness for state
On 2019-08-26 17:24, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> This changes the error code a bit.
> Previously:
> umem exists + xs unbound --> EINVAL
> no umem + xs unbound --> EBADF
> xs bound to different dev/q --> EINVAL
>
> With this change:
> umem exists + xs unbound --> EBADF
> no umem + xs unbound --> EBADF
> xs bound to different dev/q --> EINVAL
>
> Just a note. Not sure if this is important.
>
Note that this is for *shared* umem, so it's very seldom used. Still,
you're right, that strictly this is an uapi break, but I'd vote for the
change still. I find it hard to see that anyone relies on EINVAL/EBADF
for shared umem bind.
Opinions? :-)
Björn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists