On 4/25/24 12:02 PM, Abhishek Chauhan (ABC) wrote:
@@ -9444,7 +9444,7 @@ static struct bpf_insn *bpf_convert_tstamp_read(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK | SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK);
*insn++ = BPF_JMP32_IMM(BPF_JNE, tmp_reg,
TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK | SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK, 2);
- /* skb->tc_at_ingress && skb->mono_delivery_time,
+ /* skb->tc_at_ingress && skb->tstamp_type:1,
Is the :1 a stale comment after we discussed how to handle the 2-bit
This is first patch which does not add tstamp_type:2 at the moment.
This series is divided into two patches
1. One patchset => Just rename (So the comment is still skb->tstamp_type:1)
2. Second patchset => add another bit (comment is changed to skb->tstamp_type:2)
I would suggest to completely avoid the ":1" or ":2" part in patch 1. Just use
"... && skb->tstamp_type". The number of bits does not matter. The tstamp_type
will still be considered as a whole even if it would become 3 bits (unlikely) in
the future.
