On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:49 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/24/25 7:42 PM, Jason Xing wrote: > >> Please also add some details on how the UDP BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_TCP_SND_CB (or to be > >> renamed to BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SND_CB ?) will look like. It is the only callback > >> that I don't have a clear idea for UDP. > > I think I will rename it as you said. But I wonder if I can add more > > details about UDP after this series gets merged which should not be > > too late. After this series, I will carefully consider and test how we > > use for UDP type. > > Not asking for a full UDP implementation, having this set staying with TCP is > ok. We have pretty clear idea on all the new TS_*_CB will work in UDP except the > TS_SND_CB. > > I am asking at least a description on where this SND hook will be in UDP and how > the delay will be measured from the udp_sendmsg(). I haven't looked, so the > question. It is better to get some visibility first instead of scrambling to > change it after landing to -next. No problem. Let me give it more thoughts :) Thanks, Jason
