On 04/07/2022 17.44, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
Agreed. This incremental approach is basically what Jesper's
simultaneous series makes a start on, AFAICT? Would be nice if y'all
could converge the efforts :) >
I don't know why at some point Jesper decided to go on his own as he
for sure was using our tree as a base for some time, dunno what
happened then. Regarding these two particular submissions, I didn't
see Jesper's RFC when sending mine, only after when I went to read
some stuff.
Well, I have written to you (offlist) that the git tree didn't compile,
so I had a hard time getting it into a working state. We had a
ping-pong of stuff to fix, but it wasn't and you basically told me to
switch to using LLVM to compile your kernel tree, I was not interested
in doing that.
I have looked at the code in your GitHub tree, and decided that it was
an over-engineered approach IMHO. Also simply being 52 commits deep
without having posted this incrementally upstream were also a
non-starter for me, as this isn't the way-to-work upstream.
To get the ball rolling, I have implemented the base XDP-hints support
here[1] with only 9 patches (including support for two drivers).
IMHO we need to start out small and not intermix these huge refactoring
patches. E.g. I'm not convinced renaming net/{core/xdp.c => bpf/core.c}
is an improvement.
-Jesper
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/165643378969.449467.13237011812569188299.stgit@firesoul/
