On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:25:08 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. Sounds good. > > 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. It's hard to tell. Most additions to the core are small at the start so we end up chucking all of them into a handful of existing source files. And those files grow and grow. Splitting the later is extra work and makes backports harder. It's a game of predicting which code will likely grow into a reasonable ~500+ LoC at some point, and which code will not. I have the feeling that dropreason code will grow. But yes, it's still fairly small, we can defer. > > 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. SG!
