[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250508124047.xyhrabkxsbhceujv@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 15:40:47 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, irusskikh@...vell.com,
andrew+netdev@...n.ch, bharat@...lsio.com, ayush.sawal@...lsio.com,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, sgoutham@...vell.com, willemb@...gle.com,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 4/4] net: lan966x: generate software
timestamp just before the doorbell
On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 08:22:39PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> Thanks for the kind reply.
>
> It looks like how to detect depends on how the bpf prog is written?
> Mostly depends on how the writer handles this data part. Even though
> we don't guarantee on how to ask users/admins to write/adjust their
> bpf codes, it's not that convenient for them if this patch is applied,
> to be frank. I'm not pushing you to accept this patch, just curious on
> "how and why". Now I can guess why you're opposed to it....
The BPF program is not user-generated, it is run in the context of the
function you're moving.
skb_tx_timestamp()
-> skb_clone_tx_timestamp()
-> classify()
-> ptp_classify_raw()
-> bpf_prog_run(ptp_insns, skb)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists