[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fstajqt8.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 15:00:51 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, shayagr@...zon.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
dsahern@...nel.org, brouer@...hat.com, echaudro@...hat.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com, saeed@...nel.org,
maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 bpf-next 00/18] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer
support
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:49:38 +0200 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> Changes since v14:
>> - intrudce bpf_xdp_pointer utility routine and
>> bpf_xdp_load_bytes/bpf_xdp_store_bytes helpers
>> - drop bpf_xdp_adjust_data helper
>> - drop xdp_frags_truesize in skb_shared_info
>> - explode bpf_xdp_mb_adjust_tail in bpf_xdp_mb_increase_tail and
>> bpf_xdp_mb_shrink_tail
>
> I thought the conclusion of the discussion regarding backward
> compatibility was that we should require different program type
> or other explicit opt in. Did I misinterpret?
No, you're right. I think we settled on using the 'flags' field instead
of program type, but either way this should be part of the initial patch
set.
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists