On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:11 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:23:29AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > +static void hid_bpf_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> > +{
> > + struct hid_bpf_link *hid_link =
> > + container_of(link, struct hid_bpf_link, link);
> > +
> > + __clear_bit(hid_link->index, jmp_table.enabled);
> > + schedule_work(&release_work);
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > + link->index = prog_idx;
>
> I was super confused that you use prog_idx as a bit in jmp_table
> and had to look into your tree what hid_bpf_jmp_table.c is doing.
> Looks like it's not prog_id (which is prog->aux->id) that we know.
> It's hid specific prog idx in that jmp table.
> Maybe would be good to rename your prog_idx to something with 'hid' suffix or prefix?
> or 'table' suffix or prefix ?
> prog_table_idx ?
prog_table_idx sounds good :)
>
> Other than that the patch set looking great.
great, thanks!
> I'm assuming removing call_hid_bpf_prog_put_deferred() and everything related
> comes in the next set?
>
Yep. I'll probably send it tomorrow. I have a bunch of urgent
corporate stuff to do today so won't have time for the fun part of the
job :(
Cheers,
Benjamin
