[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211126101941.029e1d7f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:19:41 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
<toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] bpf: let bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action()
report more info
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:19:11 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> -void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(u32 act)
> +void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(struct net_device *dev, struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 act)
> {
> const u32 act_max = XDP_REDIRECT;
>
> - pr_warn_once("%s XDP return value %u, expect packet loss!\n",
> + pr_warn_once("%s XDP return value %u on prog %s (id %d) dev %s, expect packet loss!\n",
> act > act_max ? "Illegal" : "Driver unsupported",
> - act);
> + act, prog->aux->name, prog->aux->id, dev->name ? dev->name : "");
> }
Since we have to touch all the drivers each time the prototype of this
function is changed - would it make sense to pass in rxq instead? It has
more info which may become useful at some point.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists