> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:41:57PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
Hi Alexei,
> > From: Sameeh Jubran <sameehj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The implementation is based on this [0] draft by Jesper D. Brouer.
> >
> > Provided two new helpers:
> >
> > * bpf_xdp_get_frag_count()
> > * bpf_xdp_get_frags_total_size()
> >
> > + * int bpf_xdp_get_frag_count(struct xdp_buff *xdp_md)
> > + * Description
> > + * Get the number of fragments for a given xdp multi-buffer.
> > + * Return
> > + * The number of fragments
> > + *
> > + * int bpf_xdp_get_frags_total_size(struct xdp_buff *xdp_md)
> > + * Description
> > + * Get the total size of fragments for a given xdp multi-buffer.
> > + * Return
> > + * The total size of fragments for a given xdp multi-buffer.
> > */
> > #define __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER(FN) \
> > FN(unspec), \
> > @@ -3737,6 +3749,8 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > FN(inode_storage_delete), \
> > FN(d_path), \
> > FN(copy_from_user), \
> > + FN(xdp_get_frag_count), \
> > + FN(xdp_get_frags_total_size), \
> > /* */
>
> Please route the set via bpf-next otherwise merge conflicts will be severe.
ack, fine
in bpf-next the following two commits (available in net-next) are currently missing:
- 632bb64f126a: net: mvneta: try to use in-irq pp cache in mvneta_txq_bufs_free
- 879456bedbe5: net: mvneta: avoid possible cache misses in mvneta_rx_swbm
is it ok to rebase bpf-next ontop of net-next in order to post all the series
in bpf-next? Or do you prefer to post mvneta patches in net-next and bpf
related changes in bpf-next when it will rebased ontop of net-next?
Regards,
Lorenzo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
