[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0abbe9e-edad-4860-a2f2-9cd32e19a6a1@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:06:33 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: martin.lau@...ux.dev, razor@...ckwall.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] netkit: Allow for configuring
needed_{head,tail}room
On 12/20/24 3:23 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:39:26 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> + if (headroom) {
>> + peer->needed_headroom = headroom;
>> + dev->needed_headroom = headroom;
>> + }
>> + if (tailroom) {
>> + peer->needed_tailroom = tailroom;
>> + dev->needed_tailroom = tailroom;
>> + }
>
> Since you use the same one for main dev and peer should there be
> something rejecting the use of the new attr in the peer attrs?
> (IFLA_NETKIT_PEER_INFO)
The peer info is parsed via rtnl_nla_parse_ifinfomsg() which internally
uses ifla_policy filter where IFLA_INFO_DATA is not part of, but to be
sure I can add one more selftest case to confirm.
>> + struct {
>
> static const?
Ack, will change.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists