On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:56:33 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 19:57 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 10:19 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Since we have to touch all the drivers each time the prototype of this > > > function is changed - would it make sense to pass in rxq instead? It has > > > more info which may become useful at some point. > > > > I *think* for this specific scenario the device name provides all the > > necessary info - the users need to know the driver causing the issue. > > > > Others similar xdp helpers - e.g. trace_xdp_exception() - have the same > > arguments list used here. If the rxq is useful I guess we will have to > > change even them, and touch all the drivers anyway. > > Following the above reasoning I'm going to post v3 with the same > argument list used here, unless someone stops me soon ;) It's fine, it was just a thought :)
