[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <670dc70fe946f_2e1742294e4@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:36:15 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>,
davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
dsahern@...nel.org,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
willemb@...gle.com,
ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev,
eddyz87@...il.com,
song@...nel.org,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...ichev.me,
haoluo@...gle.com,
jolsa@...nel.org
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 04/12] net-timestamp: add static key to
control the whole bpf extension
Jason Xing wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
>
> Willem suggested that we use a static key to control. The advantage
> is that we will not affect the existing applications at all if we
> don't load BPF program.
>
> In this patch, except the static key, I also add one logic that is
> used to test if the socket has enabled its tsflags in order to
> support bpf logic to allow both cases to happen at the same time.
These two features are unrelated, should probably be separate patches.
> Or else, the skb carring related timestamp flag doesn't know which
> way of printing is desirable.
>
> One thing important is this patch allows print from both applications
> and bpf program at the same time. Now we have three kinds of print:
> 1) only BPF program prints
> 2) only application program prints
> 3) both can print without side effect
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists