[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a91d654-0e61-4da0-9d09-66a82a24012a@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:29:53 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: 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,
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, horms@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 08/13] net-timestamp: support hw
SCM_TSTAMP_SND for bpf extension
On 1/24/25 5:18 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
>>> @@ -5577,9 +5578,9 @@ static void skb_tstamp_tx_bpf(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk,
>>> op = BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SCHED_OPT_CB;
>>> break;
>>> case SCM_TSTAMP_SND:
>>> + op = sw ? BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SW_OPT_CB : BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_HW_OPT_CB;
>>> if (!sw)
>>> - return;
>>> - op = BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SW_OPT_CB;
>>> + *skb_hwtstamps(skb) = *hwtstamps;
>> hwtstamps may still be NULL, no?
> Right, it can be zero if something wrong happens.
Then it needs a NULL check, no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists