[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoB2XrWjPUAefgCaP8nZ1rvyviQY2D9gb-5R-jDU3pZ1Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:50:49 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, 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, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 01/12] net-timestamp: introduce socket tsflag requestors
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:30 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> >
> > We need a separate tsflag to control bpf extension feature so that
> > we will not affect the behaviors of existing applications.
> >
> > The idea of introducing requestors for better extension (not only
> > serving bpf extension) comes from Vadim Fedorenko.
>
> As also said in the cover letter: I prefer sk_tstflags_bpf.
>
> This array approach adds code churn, may have cacheline effects by
> moving other fields and anticipates I don't see a third requestor
> happening. And if it does, we'll deal with it then.
Got it. Thanks. I will adjust it accordingly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists