Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > If we do please run this thru checkpatch, set .strict_start_type, >> >> Will do. >> >> > and make the expected fd unsigned. A negative expected fd makes no >> > sense. >> >> A negative expected_fd corresponds to setting the UPDATE_IF_NOEXIST >> flag. I guess you could argue that since we have that flag, setting a >> negative expected_fd is not strictly needed. However, I thought it was >> weird to have a "this is what I expect" API that did not support >> expressing "I expect no program to be attached". > > I see it now, not entirely unreasonable. > > Why did you choose to use the FD rather than passing prog id directly? > Is the application unlikely to have program ID? For consistency with other APIs. Seems the pattern is generally that userspace supplies program FDs, and the kernel returns IDs, no? -Toke
