Hi Lee,
On 4/27/23 12:47 AM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
On 4/26/23 02:24, D. Wythe wrote:
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/net/smc/bpf_smc.c b/net/smc/bpf_smc.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0c0ec05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/net/smc/bpf_smc.c
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
... cut ...
Will fix it, Thanks.
+
+/* register ops */
+int smc_sock_register_negotiator_ops(struct smc_sock_negotiator_ops
*ops)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = smc_sock_validate_negotiator_ops(ops);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ /* calt key by name hash */
+ ops->key = jhash(ops->name, sizeof(ops->name), strlen(ops->name));
+
+ spin_lock(&smc_sock_negotiator_list_lock);
+ if (smc_negotiator_ops_get_by_key(ops->key)) {
+ pr_notice("smc: %s negotiator already registered\n",
ops->name);
+ ret = -EEXIST;
+ } else {
+ list_add_tail_rcu(&ops->list, &smc_sock_negotiator_list);
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&smc_sock_negotiator_list_lock);
+ return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smc_sock_register_negotiator_ops);
This and following functions are not specific to BPF, right?
I found you have more BPF specific code in this file in following
patches. But, I feel these function should not in this file since
they are not BPF specific because file name "bpf_smc.c" hints.
Yes. Logically those functions are not suitable for being placed in
"bpf_smc.c".
However, since SMC is compiled as modules by default, and currently
struct ops needs to be built in, or specific symbols will not be found
during linking.
Of course, I can separate those this function in another new file, which
can also be built in.
I may have to introduce a new KConfig likes SMC_NEGOTIATOR. But this
feature is only effective
when eBPF exists, so from the perspective of SMC, it would also be kind
of weird.
But whatever, if you do think it's necessary, I can split it into two files.
Besh wishes.
D. Wythe
