On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:30 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:07:43 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > bpf_free_used_maps(aux);
> > > > bpf_free_used_btfs(aux);
> > > > - if (bpf_prog_is_offloaded(aux))
> > > > + if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound(aux))
> > > > bpf_prog_offload_destroy(aux->prog);
> > >
> > > This also looks a touch like a mix of terms (condition vs function
> > > called).
> >
> > Here, not sure, open to suggestions. These
> > bpf_prog_offload_init/bpf_prog_offload_destroy are generic enough
> > (now) that I'm calling them for both dev_bound/offloaded.
> >
> > The following paths trigger for both offloaded/dev_bound cases:
> >
> > if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound()) bpf_prog_offload_init();
> > if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound()) bpf_prog_offload_destroy();
> >
> > Do you think it's worth it having completely separate
> > dev_bound/offloaded paths? Or, alternatively, can rename to
> > bpf_prog_dev_bound_{init,destroy} but still handle both cases?
>
> Any offload should be bound, right? So I think functions which handle
> both can use the bound naming scheme, only the offload-specific ones
> should explicitly use offload?
Agreed. Will rename the common ones to dev_offload!
