On 19.08.20 19:12, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:41:50PM +0200, KP Singh wrote: >> On 8/18/20 3:05 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 06:46:51PM +0200, KP Singh wrote: >>>> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Refactor the functionality in bpf_sk_storage.c so that concept of [...] >>>> + struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap, >>>> + struct bpf_local_storage_elem *first_selem); >>>> + >>>> +struct bpf_local_storage_data * >>>> +bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_map *map, void *value, >>> Nit. It may be more consistent to take "struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap" >>> instead of "struct bpf_map *map" here. >>> >>> bpf_local_storage_map_check_btf() will be the only one taking >>> "struct bpf_map *map". >> >> That's because it is used in map operations as map_check_btf which expects >> a bpf_map *map pointer. We can wrap it in another function but is that >> worth doing? > Agree. bpf_local_storage_map_check_btf() should stay as is. > > I meant to only change the "bpf_local_storage_update()" to take > "struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap". > Apologies, I misread that. Updated. - KP up here >> * or when the storage is freed e.g. >> * by bpf_sk_storage_free() during __sk_destruct(). >> > +1 >
