On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 9:01 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:37 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, Alexei > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:52 PM Alexei Starovoitov > > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Why do you intentionally keep people in the original discussion > > out of your CC? Remember you are the one who objected the > > idea by questioning its usefulness no matter how I hard I tried > > to explain? I am glad you changed your mind, but it does not > > mean you should forget to credit other people. > > I didn't change my mind and I still object to your stated > _reasons_ for timers. What is _your reason_ to introduce timers? Clearly you provide absolutely nothing here. ;) > > > > > > > Introduce 'struct bpf_timer' that can be embedded in most BPF map types > > > and helpers to operate on it: > > > long bpf_timer_init(struct bpf_timer *timer, void *callback, int flags) > > > long bpf_timer_mod(struct bpf_timer *timer, u64 msecs) > > > long bpf_timer_del(struct bpf_timer *timer) > > > > Like we discussed, this approach would make the timer harder > > to be independent of other eBPF programs, which is a must-have > > for both of our use cases (mine and Jamal's). Like you explained, > > this requires at least another program array, a tail call, a mandatory > > prog pinning to work. > > That is simply not true. Which part is not true? The above is what I got from your explanation. Thanks.
