[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201203174217.7717ea84@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:42:17 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>,
Allen Pais <apais@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/7] xdp: remove the xdp_attachment_flags_ok()
callback
On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:35:18 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Since we offloaded and non-offloaded programs can co-exist there doesn't
> really seem to be any reason for the check anyway, and it's only used in
> three drivers so let's just get rid of the callback entirely.
I don't remember exactly now, but I think the concern was that using
the unspecified mode is pretty ambiguous when interface has multiple
programs attached.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists