On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/5/25 10:56 PM, Jason Xing wrote: > >>> I have to rephrase a bit in case Martin visits here soon: I will > >>> compare two approaches 1) reply value, 2) bpf kfunc and then see which > >>> way is better. > >> > >> I have already explained in details why the 1) reply value from the bpf prog > >> won't work. Please go back to that reply which has the context. > > > > Yes, of course I saw this, but I said I need to implement and dig more > > into this on my own. One of my replies includes a little code snippet > > regarding reply value approach. I didn't expect you to misunderstand > > that I would choose reply value, so I rephrase it like above :) > > I did see the code snippet which is incomplete, so I have to guess. afaik, it is > not going to work. I was hoping to save some time without detouring to the > reply-value path in case my earlier message was missed. I will stay quiet and > wait for v9 first then to avoid extending this long thread further. I see. I'm grateful that you point out the right path. I'm still investigating to find a good existing example in selftests and how to support kfunc. Thanks, Jaosn
