[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoDOGTe+Uut5ADqTtYYH+tUYo7zxsBrLqcKAgVv3GmM4bA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:25:51 +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 04/12] net-timestamp: add static key to
control the whole bpf extension
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:36 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Will do it, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists