Le 31/08/2022 à 23:57, Florian Westphal a écrit : > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This helps gradually moving towards move epbf for those that >>> still heavily rely on the classic forwarding path. >> >> No one is using it. >> If it was, we would have seen at least one bug report over >> all these years. We've seen none. > > Err, it IS used, else I would not have sent this patch. > >> very reasonable early on and turned out to be useless with >> zero users. >> BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT and BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT* >> are in this category. > > I doubt it had 0 users. Those users probably moved to something > better? We are using BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT to perform custom encapsulations. What could we used to replace that?
