On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 15:46:55 +0100
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > > index d6125cfc49c3..4673afe59533 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > > @@ -2083,13 +2083,21 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_csum_level_proto = {
> > >
> > > static inline int __bpf_rx_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > {
> > > - return dev_forward_skb(dev, skb);
> > > + int ret = ____dev_forward_skb(dev, skb, false);
> > > +
> > > + if (likely(!ret)) {
> > > + skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(skb, dev);
> > > + skb_postpull_rcsum(skb, eth_hdr(skb), ETH_HLEN);
> > > + ret = netif_rx(skb);
> >
> > Why netif_rx() and not netif_rx_internal() as in dev_forward_skb() originally?
> > One extra call otherwise.
>
> This is because the function below calls netif_rx(), which is just
> outside patch-diff-window. Thus, it looked wrong/strange to call
> netif_rx_internal(), but sure I can use netif_rx_internal() instead.
Well, when building I found that we obviously cannot call
netif_rx_internal() as this is filter.c, else we get a build error:
net/core/filter.c:2091:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘netif_rx_internal’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
2091 | ret = netif_rx_internal(skb);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
