> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 06:28:24PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > BPF_CALL_2(bpf_xdp_adjust_tail, struct xdp_buff *, xdp, int, offset)
> > {
> > void *data_hard_end = xdp_data_hard_end(xdp); /* use xdp->frame_sz */
> > void *data_end = xdp->data_end + offset;
> >
> > + if (unlikely(xdp_buff_has_frags(xdp))) { /* xdp multi-frags */
> > + if (offset < 0)
> > + return bpf_xdp_multi_frags_shrink_tail(xdp, -offset);
> > +
> > + return bpf_xdp_multi_frags_increase_tail(xdp, offset);
> > + }
>
> "multi frags" isn't quite correct here and in other places.
> It sounds like watery water.
> Saying "xdp frags" is enough to explain that xdp has fragments.
> Either multiple fragments or just one fragment doesn't matter.
> I think it would be cleaner to drop "multi".
ack, I will fix it.
Regards,
Lorenzo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
