On 4/25/2024 4:50 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > 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. Okay i will just keep it as skb->tstamp_type instead of adding bitfields.
