On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 1:04 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Joanne, hi Kumar, > > On 6/10/22 9:34 PM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 12:37:50AM IST, Joanne Koong wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:23 AM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 5:58 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > >>> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 05:54:27AM IST, Joanne Koong wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:31 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > >>>>> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > >>>> I can have a look at resurrecting it later this month, if you're ok with waiting > >>>> until then, otherwise if someone else wants to pick this up before that it's > >>>> fine by me, just let me know so we avoid duplicated effort. Note that the > >>>> approach in v2 is dead/unlikely to get accepted by the TC maintainers, so we'd > >>>> have to implement the way Daniel mentioned in [0]. > >>> > >>> Sounds great! We'll wait and check back in with you later this month. > >>> > >> After reading the linked thread (which I should have done before > >> submitting my previous reply :)), if I'm understanding it correctly, > >> it seems then that the work needed for tc bpf_link will be in a new > >> direction that's not based on the code in this v2 patchset. I'm > >> interested in learning more about bpf link and tc - I can pick this up > >> to work on. But if this was something you wanted to work on though, > >> please don't hesitate to let me know; I can find some other bpf link > >> thing to work on instead if that's the case. > > The tc ingress/egress overhaul we also discussed at lsf/mm/bpf in our session > with John and pretty much is along the lines as in the earlier link you sent. > We need it from Cilium & Tetragon as well, so it's wip from our side at the > moment, modulo the bpf link part. Would you be okay if I pinged you once something > that is plateable is ready? Yeah definitely! Thanks for letting me know! > > Thanks, > Daniel
