On 6 Oct 2021, at 11:32, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:03:58 +0200 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>> Can you please check if the code above is aligned to current requirements or if >>> it is missing something? >>> If this code it is fine, I guess we have two option here: >>> - integrate the commits above in xdp multi-buff series (posting v15) and work on >>> the verfier code in parallel (if xdp_mb_pointer helper is not required from day0) >>> - integrate verfier changes in xdp multi-buff series, drop bpf_xdp_load_bytes >>> helper (probably we will still need bpf_xdp_store_bytes) and introduce >>> bpf_xdp_pointer as new ebpf helper. >> >> It wasn't clear to me that we wanted bpf_xdp_load_bytes() to exist. >> But FWIW no preference here. >> > > ack, same here. Any other opinion about it? I was under the impression getting a pointer might be enough. But playing with the bpf ring buffers for a bit, it still might be handy to extract some data to be sent to userspace. So I would not mind keeping it.
