On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 01:45:40PM +0000, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> On 2019-05-04 20:25, Björn Töpel wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 20:12, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Make it possible for the application to determine whether the AF_XDP
> >> socket is running in zero-copy mode. To achieve this, add a new
> >> getsockopt option XDP_OPTIONS that returns flags. The only flag
> >> supported for now is the zero-copy mode indicator.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Acked-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h | 7 +++++++
> >> net/xdp/xsk.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> tools/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h | 7 +++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h
> >> index caed8b1614ff..9ae4b4e08b68 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h
> >> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct xdp_mmap_offsets {
> >> #define XDP_UMEM_FILL_RING 5
> >> #define XDP_UMEM_COMPLETION_RING 6
> >> #define XDP_STATISTICS 7
> >> +#define XDP_OPTIONS 8
> >>
> >> struct xdp_umem_reg {
> >> __u64 addr; /* Start of packet data area */
> >> @@ -60,6 +61,12 @@ struct xdp_statistics {
> >> __u64 tx_invalid_descs; /* Dropped due to invalid descriptor */
> >> };
> >>
> >> +struct xdp_options {
> >> + __u32 flags;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +#define XDP_OPTIONS_FLAG_ZEROCOPY (1 << 0)
> >
> > Nit: The other flags doesn't use "FLAG" in its name, but that doesn't
> > really matter.
> >
> >> +
> >> /* Pgoff for mmaping the rings */
> >> #define XDP_PGOFF_RX_RING 0
> >> #define XDP_PGOFF_TX_RING 0x80000000
> >> diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> >> index b68a380f50b3..998199109d5c 100644
> >> --- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
> >> +++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> >> @@ -650,6 +650,28 @@ static int xsk_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> + case XDP_OPTIONS:
> >> + {
> >> + struct xdp_options opts;
> >> +
> >> + if (len < sizeof(opts))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + opts.flags = 0;
> >
> > Maybe get rid of this, in favor of "opts = {}" if the structure grows?
>
> I'm OK with any of these options. Should I respin the series, or can I
> follow up with the change in RCs if the series gets to 5.2?
>
> Alexei, is it even possible to still make changes to this series? The
> window appears closed.
The series were not applied.
Please resubmit addressing all feedback when bpf-next reopens.
Likely in ~2 weeks.
