On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 21:36 +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:12 AM -07, John Fastabend wrote: > > Geliang Tang wrote: > > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Switch attachments to bpf_link using > > > bpf_program__attach_sockmap() instead > > > of bpf_prog_attach(). > > > > Sorry it took me a few days to get to this. > > > > Is there a reason to push this to links vs just leave it as is? I > > had > > a plan to port all the test_sockmap tests into prog_tests anyways. > > I'll > > try to push some initial patch next week. Great, I strongly agree with porting them into prog_tests. I am also willing to participate in implementing this plan together. > > > > The one advantage of test_sockmap is we can have it run for longer > > runs by pushing different options through so might be worth keeping > > just for that. > > > > If you really want links here I'm OK with that I guess just asking. > > It was me who suggested the switch to bpf_link in reaction to a > series > of cleanups to prog_type and prog_attach_type submitted by Geliang. Yes, patches 3-5 address Jakub's suggestion: switching attachments to bpf_link. > Relevant threads: > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9c10d9f974f07fcb354a43a8eca67acb2fafc587.1715926605.git.tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240522080936.2475833-1-jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/e27d7d0c1e0e79b0acd22ac6ad5d8f9f00225303.1716372485.git.tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx > > I thought bpf_links added more value than cleaning up "old style" > attachments. Other patches 1-2, 6-8 are small fixes which I found while trying to solve the NONBLOCK issue [1]. Yes, I haven't given up on solving this issue yet. I think it must be solved, since there is a bug somewhere. WDYT? [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/b67101632c6858d281f105b5d4e1bc62dd6b7d27.1712133039.git.tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, -Geliang
