On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 21:36 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > +/* Note: due to dynamic registrations, access must be under RCU */ > > +extern const struct drop_reason_list __rcu * > > +drop_reasons_by_subsys[SKB_DROP_REASON_SUBSYS_NUM]; > > + > > +void drop_reasons_register_subsys(enum skb_drop_reason_subsys subsys, > > + const struct drop_reason_list *list); > > +void drop_reasons_unregister_subsys(enum skb_drop_reason_subsys subsys); > > dropreason.h is included by skbuff.h because history, but I don't think > any of the new stuff must be visible in skbuff.h. > > Could you make a new header, and put as much of this stuff there as > possible? Our future selves will thank us for shorter rebuild times.. Sure. Not sure it'll make a big difference in rebuild, but we'll see :) I ended up moving dropreason.h to dropreason-core.h first, that way we also have a naming scheme for non-core dropreason files should they become visible outside of the subsystem (i.e. mac80211 just has them internally). Dunno, let me know if you prefer something else, I just couldn't come up with a non-confusing longer name for the new thing. > Weak preference to also take the code out of skbuff.c but that's not as > important. I guess I can create a new dropreason.c, but is that worth it? It's only a few lines. Let me know, then I can resend. > You To'd both wireless and netdev, who are you expecting to apply this? > :S Good question :) The first patch (patches in v3) really should go through net-next I suppose, and I wouldn't mind if the other one did as well, it doesn't right now touch anything likely to change. johannes
