Hi Yonghong, thanks for reviewing it and sorry for the late reply I
had been traveling.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:46 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/11/19 2:33 PM, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> > This adds the generic batch ops functionality to bpf lpm_trie.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Vazquez <brianvv@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> > index 56e6c75d354d9..92c47b4f03337 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> > @@ -743,4 +743,8 @@ const struct bpf_map_ops trie_map_ops = {
> > .map_update_elem = trie_update_elem,
> > .map_delete_elem = trie_delete_elem,
> > .map_check_btf = trie_check_btf,
> > + .map_lookup_batch = generic_map_lookup_batch,
> > + .map_lookup_and_delete_batch = generic_map_lookup_and_delete_batch,
>
> Not 100% sure whether trie should use generic map
> lookup/lookup_and_delete or not. If the key is not available,
> the get_next_key will return the 'leftmost' node which roughly
> corresponding to the first node in the hash table.
>
I think you're right, we shouldn't use generic
lookup/lookup_and_delete for lpm_trie. That being said, would you be
ok, if we don't add lpm_trie support in this patch series? Also we can
drop the generic_map_lookup_and_delete implementation in this patch
series and add it in the future, if needed. What do you think?
> > + .map_delete_batch = generic_map_delete_batch,
> > + .map_update_batch = generic_map_update_batch,with efault
> > };
> >
