On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 12:51:00AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 01:29:30PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > > Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 12:46:18AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 04:47:19PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > >> > > index f0f76b6ac8be..6887a867fe8b 100644
> > > >> > > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > >> > > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > >> > > @@ -5699,7 +5699,7 @@ static int bond_xdp_set(struct net_device *dev, struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > > >> > > if (dev_xdp_prog_count(slave_dev) > 0) {
> > > >> > > SLAVE_NL_ERR(dev, slave_dev, extack,
> > > >> > > "Slave has XDP program loaded, please unload before enslaving");
> > > >> > > - err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > >> > > + err = -EEXIST;
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hmm, this has been UAPI since kernel 5.15, so can we really change it
> > > >> > now? What's the purpose of changing it, anyway?
> > > >>
> > > >> I just think it should return EXIST when the error is "Slave has XDP program
> > > >> loaded". No special reason. If all others think we should not change it, I
> > > >> can drop this patch.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Toke,
> > > >
> > > > Could you add some colour to what extent user's might rely on this error code?
> > > >
> > > > Basically I think that if they do then we shouldn't change this.
> > >
> > > Well, that's the trouble with UAPI, we don't really know. In libxdp and
> > > xdp-tools we look at the return code to provide a nicer error message,
> > > like:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/blob/master/lib/libxdp/libxdp.c#L615
> > >
> > > and as a signal to fall back to loading the programme without a dispatcher:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/blob/master/lib/libxdp/libxdp.c#L1824
> > >
> > > Both of these cases would be unaffected (or even improved) by this
> > > patch, so in that sense I don't have a concrete objection, just a
> > > general "userspace may react to this". In other words, my concern is
> > > more of a general "we don't know, so this seems risky". If any of you
> > > have more information about how bonding XDP is generally used, that may
> > > help get a better idea of this?
> >
> > Yes, that is the trouble with the UAPI. I was hoping you might be able to
> > provide the clarity you ask for above. But alas, things are as clear as
> > mud.
> >
> > In lieu of more information I suggest caution and dropping this change for
> > now.
>
> OK, I will drop this one.
Thanks.
